PRIl^CETON,    N.    J. 


.^/^L^^^S.e'C^^ 


^.-zt/^V^'^-'^^^^^^^^  -/^^ 


Shelf Number 


,p.ai 


•       ^* 


-^f  'Sue 


r 


^^--      « 


'^    •s.     A^ 


'^%^  X  -^^^ 


SACRED      PHILOLOGY 


INTERPRETATION. 


West  &  Teow,  Pbintebs. 


INTRODUCTION 


SACRED  PHILOLOGY 


INTERPRETATION, 


DR.  G.  J.  PLANCK; 


TRANSLATED    FROM    THE    ORIGINAL    GERMAN, 


ENLARGED  WITH  NOTES, 


SAMUEL  H.  TURNER,  D.  D. 

Prof,   of  Bib.  Lit.  aud  Interp.  of  Scrip,  in  the  Theol.  Sem.  of  the  Prot.  Epia.  Church,  »nd  of  the 
Heb.  Lan.  aud  Lit.  in  Colum.  Col.,  New-Vork. 


NEW-YORK: 

LEAVITT,    LORD    &   CO.,    182    BROADWAY. 
BOSTON  :-CROCKER  &  BREWSTER. 

1834. 


Entered  according  to  the  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1834,  by 
Samuel  H.  Tukner,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
Southern  District  of  New- York. 


Of 

PREFACE.     "^^^^^9^^<* 


The  author  of  the  work  now  presented  to 
the  American  public,  is  principally  distin- 
guished in  his  native  country  for  his  numerous 
writings  on  Ecclesiastical  History.  The  fol- 
lowing translation  is  a  small  part  of  his  large 
and  valuable  introduction  to  theological  lite- 
rature in  general.  The  subject  of  it  is  sacred 
PHILOLOGY  and  interpretation.  The  transla- 
tor is  induced  to  publish  it,  in  the  hope  that 
it  may  facilitate  the  pursuit  of  these  studies 
to  young  men  preparing  for  the  ministry,  and 
may  also  be  acceptable  to  men  of  intelligence 
generally,  who  comprise  within  the  circle  of 
their  literary  reading  those  topics  which  are 
connected  with  a  fundamental  knowledge  of 
the  Bible.  The  want  of  some  general  work 
on  these  two  points  has  often  been  felt  by 


PREFACE. 


him,  while  endeavoring  to  direct  the  Biblical 
studies  of  candidates  for  the  ministry ;  and, 
upon  reading  the  introduction  of  Dr.  Planck 
he  resolved  to  translate  those  sections  which 
relate  to  philology  and  interpretation,  and  to 
add  such  notes  as  the  nature  of  the  subject 
appeared  to  require.  Young  men,  just  enter- 
ing on  a  course  of  critical  and  exegetical 
study,  feel  the  want  of  some  small  work, 
which  shall  lay  before  them  a  general  view 
of  these  subjects,  presenting  in  a  clear  light 
fundamental  principles,  directing  their  atten- 
tion to  the  more  important  topics,  and  point- 
ing out  the  sources  from  which  more  extended 
information  may  be  derived.  The  manual 
now  offered  to  the  reader  is  not,  in  all  re- 
spects, such  an  one  as  the  writer  could  wish. 
Composed  forty  years  ago,  and  with  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  state  of  learning  then 
subsisting  in  the  author's  native  land,  it 
might  reasonably  be  expected  that  additions 
would  occasionally  be  necessary,  in  order  to 
adapt  the  book  in  some  degree  to  our  own 


PREFACE.  J 

age  and  country.  The  reader  will  find  some 
additions  of  this  kind  in  the  accompanying 
notes. 

In  adding  to  the  literary  notices  of  the 
several  subjects  presented  in  the  course  of  the 
work,  the  intention  was,  to  select  such  books 
as  a  student  may  read  or  refer  to  with  most 
advantage.  To  append  a  list  of  all  the  publi- 
cations which  have  appeared  since  the  au- 
thor's age,  would  have  required  a  volume. 
The  effect  also  Avould  be  to  disgust  the  reader 
by  a  display  of  literature,  rather  than  to 
allure  him  to  the  study  of  philology  and  inter- 
pretation, by  introducing  him  to  a  few  able 
and  attractive  guides. 

When  books  in  German  are  mentioned,  I 
have  endeavored  to  put  the  English  reader  in 
possession  of  the  subject  of  them,  by  a  trans- 
lation. 

The  duty  of  studying  the  Bible  in  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  originals  is  now  more 
generally  recognized  by  students  of  theology 
than  it  was  a  few  years  since.     The  Protes- 


PREFACE. 


tant  principle,  which  subjects  every  theologi- 
cal opinion  to  the  test  of  scripture,  evidently 
requires  the  candidate  for  the  ministry  to 
prepare  himself  for  the  office  of  a  religious 
instructor  by  such  a  method  of  study,  unless 
peculiar  circumstances  should  make  it  im- 
practicable for  him  to  do  so.  The  policy  of 
such  a  course  is  also  equally  evident.  For, 
although  in  the  outset,  the  advancement  of 
the  student  may  be  slow,  yet  in  the  end  the 
acquisitions  which  he  will  make  are  not  only 
more  solid,  but  more  extensive,  than  can  be 
gained  by  pursuing  any  other  method.  If 
this  little  work  shall  contribute  to  aid  the 
student  in  his  progress,  or  excite  him  to  in- 
dustry in  the  pursuit,  the  translator  will  feel 
that  the  time  which  he  has  devoted  to  it  has 
not  been  uselessly  spent. 


INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER, 

BV    THE     TRAN8LAT0K. 

With  the  view  of  giving  the  reader  a  clear  im- 
pression of  the  design  and  plan  of  the  author,  I  prefix 
this  prehniinary  chapter,  which  contains  an  outhne  of 
those  parts  of  Dr.  Planck's  introduction  which  precede 
the  translated  chapters. 

The  author  begins  by  remarking,  that  the  changes 
which  have  affected  theological  literature,  in  common 
with  other  branches  of  knowledge,  require  a  correspon- 
dent change  in  the  method  of  pursuing  it,  and  conse- 
quently new  and  additional  directions  in  order  to  study 
It  to  the  best  advantage.  To  furnish  such  directions, 
adapted  to  the  improved  state  of  science  and  literature 
of  his  own  age,  is  the  design  of  his  work. 

But  from  the  very  nature  of  an  introduction  it  must 
be  evident,  that  it  does  not  profess  to  instruct  the  reader 
in  the  whole  science  of  theology.  It  can  only  present 
to  his  mind  a  view  of  its  outlines,  assist  him  in  filling 
up  the  picture,  and  present  it  to  his  eye  in  attractive 
colors.  It  must  give  him  clear  ideas  of  its  object,  and 
design,  and  also  of  its  general  form  and  character,  so  far 
as  these  can  be  determined  by  means  of  the  others.  It 
must  show  the  mutual  connexion  of  the  different  parts 


b  INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER. 

of  each  branch,  and  also  that  in  which  the  whole  sub- 
ject stands  to  learning  in  general.  It  must  point  out 
the  most  direct  and  the  best  method  for  a  successful  pro- 
secution of  the  study,  develop  the  sources  of  informa- 
tion relating  to  it,  and  give  a  history  of  its  literature. 

Here  it  is  to  be  particularly  observed,  that  an  intro- 
duction to  theology  is  not  to  be  an  introduction  to  any 
one  particular  system.  It  is  not  its  object  to  place  the 
student  in  a  situation,  from  which  he  will  be  able  to 
take  only  a  partial  view  of  the  truths  to  which  he 
is  to  be  conducted,  or,  to  see  them  only  in  one  particular 
direction.  The  impropriety  and  dishonesty  of  such  a 
course  are  evident.  Its  object  is — and  this  is  the  only 
method  by  which  the  cause  of  truth  and  learning  can 
be  advanced — to  place  him  in  a  condition  to  exarmne 
every  thing  for  himself  with  unprejudiced  impartiality ; 
to  teach  him  how  to  form  a  judgment  respecting  the 
materials  which  the  subject  presents  to  him,  a  judgment 
founded  upon  a  faithful  and  complete  representation  of 
whatever  ought  in  reason  to  have  influence.  Nothing 
but  this  can  form  the  theologian  who  thinks  for  himself, 
and  any  other  kind  it  is  not  desirable  to  form. 

A.n  introduction  to  theology  must  carefully  avoid 
whatever  may  be  regarded  as  mere  learned  form.  What- 
ever information  it  has  to  communicate,  it  must  endea- 
vor to  lay  before  the  reader  in  such  a  manner,  that  a 
sound  understanding  can  readily  comprehend  it  without 
the  aid  of  a  learned  apparatus.  Otherwise  it  will  be  of 
little  utility  to  one  who  is  entering  upon  the  study  of 
divinity,  for  whom  it  is  principally  intended,  or  to  gene- 
ral readers.  For  the  same  reason,  it  should  avoid  a 
show  of  literature.     This  is  undoubtedly  one  of  th 


INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER.  7 

worst  errors,  into  which  an  introduction  to  any  depart- 
ment of  learning  can  fall.  Nothing  is  more  alarming 
to  a  beginner  than  a  long  catalogue  of  hterary  works, 
with  which  he  is  to  become  acquainted ;  and  if  it  should 
not  alarm  him,  it  will  certainly  discourage  him  from 
attempting  to  use  them,  through  despair  of  being  able 
to  master  the  whole.  An  introduction  should  limit 
Itself  to  such  works  as  are  of  most  utility  and  impor- 
tance, and  to  such  as  have  constituted  epochs  in  the 
history  of  the  literature  belonging  to  the  subject. 

With  these  views  the  author  proceeds  to  state  the 
plan  of  his  work.  It  consists  of  three  sections.  The 
first  is  devoted  to  a  development  and  illustration  of  the 
general  ideas  by  which  the  object,  design  and  compass 
of  the  whole  science  are  marked  out.  The  second 
exammes  the  connexion  of  theology  with  those  other 
branches  of  literature,  from  which  it  must  derive 
preliminary  laiowledge,  or  is  able  to  borrow  assistance. 
The  third  and  last,  which  is  unavoidably  the  most  com- 
prehensive, relates  to  theology  itself  in  its  various 
departments. 

In  pursuing  the  outline,  I  shall  be  as  brief  as  possi- 
ble, marking  out  the  divisions  of  the  original  into 
sections  and  chapters. 


SECTION     I. 

Chap.  I.  11.  Theology  is  the  science  of  religion  ; 
the  learned  knowledge  of  those  doctrines  and  truths, 
which  instruct  us  in  our  relations  to  God,  in  the  duties 
which  we  owe  him  resulting  from  those  relations,  and 
in  the  hopes  which  we  may  venture  to  build  thereon. 
Christian  theology  is  founded  upon  a  divine  revelation. 


8  INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER. 

It  has  for  its  object  those  doctrines  which  have  been  com- 
municated from  God,  by  Christ  and  through  his  mstruc- 
tion,  and  which,  consequently,  were  not  discoverable 
merely  by  the  usual  methods  of  ascertaining  truth  m  all 
other  departments  of  knowledge,  but  by  means  of  a 
divine  arrangement  altogether  extraordinary.  The  in- 
ternal character  of  the  truths  themselves,  and  the  exter- 
nal importance  attached  to  them  in  consequence  of  their 
origin,  demand  the  conclusion  that  they  are  far  superior 
to  the  objects  of  all  other  sciences. 

III.  IV.  If  now  it  be  allowed  that  these  truths 
are  the  most  weighty,  and  the  design  in  reference  to 
which  they  are  to  be  studied,  the  greatest,  the  most 
interesting,  and  the  most  worthy  of  exertion,  it  evi- 
dently follows  that  they  are  deserving  of  the  utmost 
degree  of  attention.  They  are  the  foundation  of  our 
happiness,  the  security  of  our  hopes,  and  consequently 
must  be  settled  upon  the  firmest  basis,  upon  grounds  on 
which  we  may  rely  with  confidence.  And  how  is  this 
to  be  done  ?  Only  by  placing  ourselves  in  a  condition 
to  examine  those  grounds  and  to  try  their  character, 
and  thus  to  arrive  at  conviction  in  our  own  minds  ;  in 
other  words,  by  making  our  knowledge  of  these  sub- 
jects a  learned  knowledge.  This  point  the  author  pro- 
ceeds to  discuss,  obviating  the  usual  objections  brought 
against  learning  in  connexion  with  theology,  and 
remarking  that  all  the  errors  and  heresies  which  have 
distracted  the  church,  may  be  traced  to  causes  very  dif- 
ferent from  learning.  In  a  multitude  of  instances  they 
have  arisen  and  spread,  not  because  their  authors  and 
abettors  were  learned,  but  because  they  were  not 

LEARNED  ENOUGH. 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  V 

V.  VI.  VII.  The  next  point  examined  relates  to 
the  qualifications  which  are  necessary  for  the  study  of 
theology.  It  requires  the  same  mental  endowments 
which  are  called  for  in  cultivating  any  other  science  , 
an  ability  to  comprehend,  connect  and  compare  abstract 
ideas — such  a  degree  of  discrimination  as  is  sufficient 
to  enable  a  man  to  judge  of  the  characteristics  of  truth 
and  falsehood,  and  to  separate  the  one  fi-om  the  other — 
a  perception  of  truth,  not  innate,  but  acquired  by  men- 
tal discipline—and  a  memory  sufficiently  clear  to  call 
up  the  knowledge  required  for  daily  use,  without  con- 
fijsion  or  error.  It  is  true  indeed,  that  the  want  of 
these  qualifications  in  a  considerable  degree  cannot  be 
regarded  as  a  suflicient  reason  for  deterring  a  man 
from  the  study  of  theology,  provided  he  have  no  other 
view  but  to  examine  the  subject  for  his  own  satisfac- 
tion, although  the  knowledge  he  may  be  able  to  acquire 
must  be  proportionably  weak,  obscure,  and  destitute  of 
proper  arrangement.  But  the  case  is  different  when 
his  object  is  to  prepare  himself  for  communicating 
mstruction  and  satisfaction  to  others.  It  is  but  too 
probable  that  rehgion  may  be  injured  by  means  of  the 
niadequacy  of  such  men  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
IS  impossible  to  say  what  benefits  may  result,  by  the 
direction  of  Providence,  from  their  efforts,  if  their 
imperfect  knowledge  be  accompanied  by  pious  zeal. 
How  far  it  may  be  right  and  expedient  to  encourage 
such  persons  to  pursue  a  course  of  theological  study, 
with  the  view  of  becoming  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  is 
a  question  which  requires  the  exercise  of  prudence, 
piety  and  good  sense.     General  regulations  on  points 

of  this   kind,  established   by  legitimate  ecclesiastical 
1* 


10  INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER. 

authority,  are  not  to  be  disregarded,  in  the  hope  that 
divine  Providence  will  counteract  the  injurious  effects 
which  might  otherwise  result. 

But  in  addition  to  mental  endowments,  moral  quali- 
fications are  necessary.  It  is  too  plain  to  require  evi- 
dence, that  the  object  in  view  can  never  be  attained, 
unless  the  soul  be  animated  by  a  deeply  felt  principle 
of  piety.  The  inquirer  must  be  guided  by  religious 
reverence,  by  humble  distrust  of  his  own  views,  and  by 
habitual  recollection  of  the  narrow  limits  to  which  the 
powers  of  his  understanding  are  confined.  These 
points  it  is  unnecessary  to  illustrate.  They  must 
force  themselves  upon  every  one's  observation.  But 
there  are  other  moral  properties,  which  must  be  pos- 
sessed and  cultivated,  in  order  that  the  study  of  theology 
may  be  pursued  with  the  greatest  prospect  of  success. 
The  author  proceeds  to  state  the  following. 

In  the  first  place,  the  student  must  possess  a 
supreme  love  of  truth,  free,  as  far  as  possible,  from 
prejudices,  or  at  least  sufficiently  influential  to  enable 
him  to  sacrifice  every  prejudice  to  truth,  when  dis- 
covered. This  will  propel  him  to  exertion,  and  he  will 
take  all  necessary  pains  to  make  himself  acquainted 
with  what  God  hath  revealed,  simply  for  the  reason 
that  God  hath  revealed  it. 

A  second  requisition,  intimately  connected  with 
t?ie  former,  consists  of  a  settled  resolution  of  mind 
not  to  be  terrified  by  doubts,  and  in  the  search  after 
truth,  not  to  leave  any  doubt  unexamined.  No  dowbts 
that  can  be  suggested  need  produce  alarm.  Either 
they  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  a  competent  and  care- 
ful inquirer — and  none  other  is  here  contemplated — 


INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER.  11 

may  be  able  to  meet  them,  and  satisfy  hmiself  of  tlieir 
fallacy  ;  or  else,  they  are  too  powerful  to  be  resisted  by 
learnmg  and  argument,  and  should  therefore  be  gladly 
admitted  as  beneficial  to  the  interests  of  progressive 
truth. 

Lastly,  there  must  be  conscientious  fidelity  in 
adhering  to  the  convictions  which  the  mind  has 
received.  I  do  not  mean  an  obstinate  stubbornness, 
which  will  listen  to  no  further  arguments,  and  is 
determined  to  adhere  to  principles  once  adopted,  not 
withstanding  the  strongest  impressions  produced  by 
more  correct  views  :  this  is  nothing  less  than  bigotry. 
1  mean,  that  the  sentiments  once  embraced,  after  suffi 
cient  investigation  to  satisfy  the  inquirer  of  their  truth, 
ought  not  to  be  relinquished  until  he  is  satisfied,  by 
equally  strong  and  clear  evidence,  that  they  are  erro- 
neous, and  have  consequently  been  hastily  or  incau 
tiously  adopted. 

VIII — XV.  In  continuation,  the  author  takes  a 
view  of  the  whole  study  and  of  the  general  subjects 
which  It  comprises.  He  distributes  it  into  four  principal 
departments.  First;  exegetical  theology,  com 
preliending  apologetic  divinity  or  defence  of  revealed 
religion,  the  history  and  establishment  of  the  canon 
of  scripture,  and  sacred  philology  with  interpretation. 
Second;  historic  theology,  the  various  divisions 
of  whicii  he  lays  before  the  reader  together  with  a 
view  of  its  utility.  Third;  systematic  theology, 
(founded  in  all  its  parts  upon  tlie  Bible.)  comprehend 
mg  doctrinal,  moral,  and  symbolic*  divinity.     The  first 

*  From  orUfi/JuX)',,  the  symbol  or  creed  of  eacli  particu!;ir  church. 


12 


INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER. 


of  these  three  epithets  is  intended  to  mark  out  the  general 
system  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  the  last  those  particu- 
lar systems  which  have  been  embraced  by  different 
Christian  churches  respectively.  The  nature  of  the 
intermediate  is  plainly  determined  by  its  name.  Fourth  ; 
APPLIED  or  PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY,  that  IS,  whatcver 
is  comprised  under  the  terms,  homiletic,  catechetical, 
and  pastoral  theology^  He  then  proceeds  to  discuss 
the  questions,  whether  the  sUidy  of  all  these  branches 
is  necessary  tor  instructors  in  religion ;  and  if  so,  in 
what  measure.  He  lays  down  four  general  directions 
for  a  proper  study  of  theology,  and  concludes  the  sec- 
tion by  giving  some  of  the  principal  works  in  which 
those  of  a  more  particular  and  definite  nature  may  be 
found. 


SECTION      11. 

1.  n.  This  section  is  devoted  to  a  consideration 
of  those  branches  of  knowledge,  which  are  preparatory 
and  subsidiary  to  theology. 

The  author  begins  with  a  knowledge  of  languages, 
In  order  to  perceive  the  bearing  of  this  study  on  the 
ology,  it  may  be  proper  first,  to  take  a  view  of  its 
necessity  in  general.  This  arises  from  the  three  fol- 
lowing considerations.  It  aids  our  progress  in  think- 
ing ; — it  is  necessary  in  order  to  enable  us  to  impart 
our  thoughts  and  sentiments  to  others, — and  to  make 
their  thoughts  and  opinions  useful  to  ourselves.  The 
iwo  last  are  self  evident,  and  of  course  require  no  illus- 
tration. The  first  may  at  first  view  appear  to  some  to 
be  paradoxical :  but  a  close  examination  of  the  subject 


IXTKODUCTORY    CHAPTER.  13 

Will  show  the  truth  of  this  position,  that  we  improve  in 
learning  to  think,  ni  proportion  as  we  improve  in  learn- 
ing to  speak,  and  therefore  that  an  acquaintance  with 
langiiao-e  is  as  necessary  to  our  own  clear  and 
comprehensive  thinking,  as  it  is  to  communicate  oui 
thoughts  to  others.*  Hence,  then,  it  evidently  fol- 
lows, that  in  the  study  of  theologj'-,  as  in  every  other 
study,  a  man  who  possesses  an  extensive  knowledge  of 
languages,  will  be  able  to  advance  with  the  more 
facility  and  speed,  and  will  generally  attain  the  most 
secure  and  complete  possession  of  his  object.  If  a 
certain  degree  of  mental  formation  and  power  of  judg- 
ment, in  other  words,  of  acquired  ability  to  compre 
hend  ideas,  to  work  them  up,  and  connect  them 
together,  be  necessary ;  if  the  total  want  of  this  totally 
unfits  us  for  the  object  in  view,  th&<icquisition  of  it  in 
a  considerable  degree  must  proportionably  qualify  us ; 
and  if  the  study  of  languages  promotes  this  acquisition, 
its  utility  in  the  study  of  theology  is  not  to  be  ques- 
tioned. The  more  languages  a  man  understands,  the 
better  will  he  be  able  to  pursue  this  study  with  success  : 
not  merely  because  he  has  thereby  collected  more  ideas, 
or  put  himself  in  a  condition  to  use  the  ideas  of  others  ; 
but  also,  because  by  studying  several  languages,  he 
has  enlarged  his  capacity  for  receiving  ideas  and  form- 
ing an  accurate  judgment  of  them.  This  is  an  unde- 
niable truth,  founded  in  the  very  nature  of  the  soul. 

In  addition  to  the  vernacular  tongue,  the  Greek  and 
Latin  are  absolutely  necessary  in  preparing  for  the 
study  of  divinity,  and  some  living  languages,  especially 

*  See  Note  I,  at  the  end. 


14  INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER. 

the  French  and  English,  [German.]  highly  useful.  The 
Hebrew  and  oriental  languages,  in  general,  are  not 
properly  comprehended  within  the  range  of  prelimmary 
studies  ;  they  constitute  a  part  of  the  subject  itself,  and 
shall  afterwards  be  brought  into  view  under  the 
head  of  sacred  philology. 

Ill — V.  The  importance  of  acquiring  an  accurate 
and  extensive  knowledge  of  our  own  language,  and  of 
cultivating  the  Latin  and  Greek,  as  those  which  con- 
tain the  best  specimens  of  composition,  and  present  the 
powers  of  the  human  mind  in  the  strongest  light,  is 
examined  and  vindicated  against  some  modern  objec- 
tions ;  and  this  part  of  the  subject  is  closed  by  exhibit- 
ing the  claims  of  the  French  and  English.  The 
author  then  proceeds  (VI — XII,)  to  other  preliminary 
and  auxiliary  branches  of  knowledge,  such  as  logic, 
metaphysics,  natural  theology,  morals,  and  history  ; 
pointing  out  the  utility  and  importance  of  each  depart- 
ment. 


SECTION     III. 

We  now  enter  upon  the  third  section,  which 
includes  the  largest  portion  of  the  work,  and  is  an 
introduction  to  theology  itself  It  is  divided  into  three 
parts,  exegetical,  historical,  and  systematic  theology. 
The  first  comprehends  apologetic  divinity,  or  defence 
of  revealed  religion  and  of  the  scriptures,  the  history 
of  the  canon,  sacred  philology,  and  interpretation. 
Dr.  Planck's  observations  on  the  two  latter  subjects 
are  given  to  the  reader  in  full  in  the  subsequent  trans- 
lation; those  on  the  former  may  be  found  in  the 
following  abstract. 


INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER.  It 


APOLOGETIC    DIVINITY. 

I.  The  design  of  apologetic  divinity  is  evident 
from  the  very  name.  In  the  nature  of  things,  theology 
must,  in  the  first  place,  establish  its  claims  to  divine 
authority. 

Since  this  department  may  very  easily  be  confounded 
with  another,  it  becomes  necessary  to  define  with  some 
degree  of  accuracy  the  great  object  which  it  has  in 
view.  Its  attention  is  directed  to  the  proofs  of  the 
divinity  of  our  religion,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  divine 
origin  and  divine  authority  of  the  doctrine  of  our 
Lord  and  his  apostles.  This  is  a  very  diflerent  point 
from  the  inspiration  and  divinity  of  the  writings  in 
which  that  doctrine  is  contained,  although  the  differ- 
ence has  often  been  overlooked,  and  thereby  a  contu- 
sion of  ideas  has  arisen,  which  has  not  been  without  an 
injurious  tendency.  The  proof  of  the  one  is  of  a  very 
dift'erent  kind  from  that  of  the  other,  and  the  argu- 
ments whicli  support  the  divinity  of  the  doctrines 
are  alone  incompetent  to  establish  that  of  the  wri- 
tings. It  must  consequently  be  maintained  on  other 
grounds. 

II.  The  next  point  relates  to  the  manner  in  which 
apologetic  divinity  must  suitably  accomplish  its  object. 
The  first  rule  is,  to  conduct  the  defence  with  a  view 
to  the  attacks  to  which  the  divine  truth  of  Christi- 
anity has,  in  the  greatest  degree,  been  exposed.  It 
has  very  often  been  forgotten,  that  it  is  not  merely 
the  object  of  this  branch  of  theology  to  remove 
objections,  to  solve  doubts,  and  to  lessen  the  force  of 
discrepances  ;    but  it  is  also  bound  to  advance  positive 


i«l 


16  INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER. 

proof.  Many,  who  have  attempted  to  defend  the  cause 
of  Christianity,  have  supposed  that  they  have  accom- 
pUshed  the  latter,  when  they  have  done  nothing  more 
than  a  part  of  the  former. 

III.  Two  principal  methods  of  argument  have 
been  employed ;  that  which  defends  the  truth  of 
revelation  on  internal  evidence,  and  that  which 
considers  the  whole  subject  in  the  light  of  a  his- 
torical fact,  and  derives  its  conclusion  from  external 
proof. 

In  the  former  class  of  argument,  three  points  have 
been  urged  as  of  principal  importance.  The  first  con- 
sists ill  that  eminent  superiority  which  revealed  religion 
possesses  over  what  is  called  natural,  in  imparting  to 
us  so  much  knowledge  which  this  cannot  possibly 
coirmiunicate,  and  whicli  nevertheless  is  necessary, 
because  indispensable  to  our  happiness.  Revelation 
fills  up  the  void  which  nature  is  incompetent  to  satisfy. 
It  must  therefore  be  divine,  as  none  but  God  can  make 
such  disclosures.  The  second  point  is,  the  correspon- 
dence of  the  instructions  imparted  by  revelation  with 
what  our  own  reason  recognizes  as  true  and  noble  and 
suited  to  our  destination ;  and  hence  the  inference  is 
drawn,  that  these  instructions  must  have  been  commu- 
nicated from  al30ve,  since  the  men  who  first  published 
them  to  the  world  could  not  possibly  have  derived 
them  from  any  other  source.  The  third  and  last  point 
which  has  been  adduced  in  this  argument  is,  the  influ- 
ence which  the  doctrines  of  revealed  religion  exercise 
in  the  soul.  Here  experience  has  been  appealed  to  in 
order  to  show,  that  its  truths  produce  a  stronger  im- 
pression upon  man  than  all  other  known  moral  doc- 


INTRODUCTORY   CHAPTER.  17 

triiies :  that  thereby  his  will  is  more  powerflilly  direct- 
ed, his  heart  more  powerfully  moved,  and  his  whole 
nature  more  steadily  excited  to  attain  excellence,  than 
by  the  operation  of  all  others.  Hence  it  has  been  con- 
cluded, that  some  higher  power  than  that  which  ordi- 
narily accompanies  truth,  must  be  connected  with  the 
truths  of  Christianity,  and  from  this  it  has  been  inferred 
that  the  origin  of  these  truths  is  divine. 

In  the  latter  method  of  argument,  that  which  main- 
tains the  truth  of  revealed  religion  on  external  evidence, 
there  are  also  three  prominent  points,  which  have  been 
regarded  as  sources  of  proof  Unlike  the  former  class, 
these  three  are  the  only  external  sources  of  argument. 

The  first,  and  that  which  has  been  principally  em- 
ployed, is  the  proof  from  miracles,  to  which  the  greatest 
force  has  been  attributed.  Its  validity  depends  upon 
the  supposition,  not  to  be  denied,  that  the  Almighty 
would  not  permit  an  impostor  to  exert  a  supernatural 
power,  by  means  of  which  all  mankind  might  be 
deceived  in  a  matter  relating  to  their  highest  interest. 
This  being  granted,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  to 
establish  the  historical  truth  of  the  miracles  of  our 
Lord  and  his  apostles,  and  it  follows  that  their  doctrine 
is  from  God. — In  a  manner  very  similar  is  the  same 
conclusion  drawn  from  the  prophecies  which  are  con- 
tained in  the  scriptures.  If  some  of  those  prophecies 
can  be  proved  to  be  real  predictions  of  future  contin- 
gencies, that  is,  of  such  events  as  no  human  prudence 
and  sagacity  could  foresee,  it  is  unquestionable,  that  a 
divine  power  co-operated  in  producing  them  ;  as  none 
but  that  being  whose  understanding  is  infinite,  could 
possess   a  previous    knowledge  of  such   events. — Jn 


18  INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER. 

modern  times  a  third  source  of  external  proof  has  been 
employed,  derived  from  the  human  credibihty  of  the 
founder  of  our  rehgion  and  of  his  apostles.  The  inter- 
mediate steps  necessary  to  establish  this  argument,  are 
easily  supported.  That  Christ  and  his  apostles  are 
worthy  of  the  highest  degree  of  credit,  which  can 
possibly  be  given  to  mcii,  is  evinced  from  their  charac- 
ter ;  from  their  personal  circumstances  ;  from  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  time  and  nation  in  which  they 
appeared ;  from  the  object  which  they  had,  and  which 
alone  they  could  have,  in  view ;  from  the  internal 
marks  of  truth,  not  to  be  mistaken,  which  are  discove- 
rable in  their  writings  ;  from  the  whole  spirit  of  their 
instructions ;  and  even  from  the  declarations  of  their 
most  inveterate  enemies.  And  when  this  previous 
question,  the  credibility  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles, 
is  settled  in  opposition  to  all  doubts,  we  may  infer  the 
divinity  of  their  doctrine  either  immediately,  or  by  aid  of 
the  argument  derived  from  the  performance  of  miracles. 

That  all  the  proofs  above  stated  are  not  equally 
satisfactory  and  conclusive,  will  be  evident  to  every 
thinking  mind ;  and  consequently,  it  must  be  equally 
evident,  that  apologetic  divinity  requires  very  critical 
investigation,  much  impartiality  in  examination,  and 
great  logical  precision  in  argument. 

IV.  V.  The  author  now  proceeds  to  a  literary 
history  of  the  subject,  and  gives  a  brief  account  of  the 
principal  works  which  have  appeared  in  defence  of 
revealed  religion,  from  the  apology  of  Justin  Martyr  to 
the  productions  of  his  own  day.  He  then  adds  (VI ;) 
some  directions  for  the  best  method  of  studying  it  with 
most  success. 


INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER.  19 

In  the  first  place,  he  earnestly  advises  all  who  enter 
upon  the  study  of  theology,  not  to  investigate  the 
proofs  of  the  divine  authority  of  revealed  religion 
without  bringing  themselves  to  feel,  that  the  subject  is 
not  destitute  of  difficulties.  Thus  they  will  not  satisfy 
themselves  too  easily  with  the  strongest  proof  that  may 
be  most  accessible;  nor  will  they  want  a  sufficient 
interest  in  the  examination,  to  induce  them  to  take 
pams  in  removing  difficulties,  the  weight  of  which  they 
nave  felt. 

In  the  second  place,  a  man  must  study  the  proofs 
of  divine  revelation  for  himself,  he  must  himself  inves- 
tigate and  examine,  he  must  see  with  his  own  eyes,  in 
order  to  form  conclusions  of  his  own  reasoning.  Let 
him  analyze  every  proof  presented  to  him,  let  him  con- 
sider whether  the  consequences  deduced  are  really 
legitimate,  or  whether  they  are  m  any  degree  unfound- 
ed. Thus,  let  him  establish  his  positions  on  incontro- 
vertible ground,  and  draw  his  conclusions  in  a  logical 
manner,  and  then  only  can  he  feel  conscious  of  pos- 
sessing a  true,  usefiil  and  satisfactory  proof  of  the  divine 
origm  of  Christianity. 

Lastly,  when  a  man  has  examined  a  proof,  and 
satisfied  himself  that  it  is  one  on  which  he  may  safely 
rely ;  he  should  then  subject  it  to  the  test  of  the  doubts 
and  the  thorough  mvestigation  of  others.  Let  him  pro- 
cure some  work,  which  attempts  to  overturn  the  proofs 
of  revelation,  and  is  especially  directed  against  that  in 
favor  of  which  his  judgment  has  decided.  Let  him 
remove  all  the  objections  which  it  contains.  Let  him 
ask  himself  whether  his  argument  can  be  defended 
against  them  :  and  if  so.  in  what  manner, — what  reply 


20  INTRODUCTORY   CHAPTER. 

can  be  urged  on  the  other  side.  The  result  of  such  a 
trial  of  the  strength  of  an  argument,  can  never  be  pre- 
judicial to  the  cause  of  truth. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

I.  By  the  very  significant  word  Canon  is  under- 
stood, in  the  theology  of  the  present  day,  the  collection 
of  those  writings,  which,  on  the  testimony  of  the  church 
m  the  earliest  age,  are  attributed  to  inspired  authors: 
in  other  words,  the  aggregate  of  those  books  which  we 
c£)nsider  as  divine,  because  we  believe  in  the  inspiration 
of  their  authors,  and  which,  for  this  reason  we  distin- 
guish fi-om  other  books,  the  writers  of  which  cannot  be 
proved  to  have  been  inspired.  In  a  proper  history  of 
this  subject,  therefore,  it  is  necessary  to  show,  why  each 
individual  book  contained  in  the  sacred  collection  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  is  regarded  as  canonical,  or 
how  it  acquired  its  canonical  authority ;  that  is  to  say, 
on  what  grounds  the  certainty  or  credibiUty  rests,  that 
Its  author  was  inspired. 

II.  The  first  point  in  this  discussion  is,  to  deter- 
mine the  authenticity  of  each  book  asserted  to  be 
canonical  ;  and  after  this,  the  genuineness  of  each 
must  be  proved.  To  both  these  it  is  important  to  add, 
a  knowledge  of  the  period  in  which  they  were  com- 
|X)sed,  of  the  circumstances  connected  with  their  origin, 
of  the  object  for  which  they  were  written,  and  of  the 
persons  for  whose  use  they  were  principally  prepared 
and  to  whom  they  were  originally  directed.  The 
nearer  we  can  arrive  at  certainty  on  all  these  pomts, 
the  stronger  must  be  our  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the 
others. 


INTRODUCTORY    CHAPTER  21 

III — X.  The  author  proceeds  to  suggest  some  con- 
siderations on  the  best  way  of  meeting  the  requisitions, 
and  on  the  materials  on  which  the  proof  of  the  above 
particulars  can  be  founded.  He  then  discusses  the 
methods  in  which  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures  may 
be  thought  to  be  satisfactorily  argued,  and  after  esta- 
blishmg  this  most  important  principle  upon  divine 
ATTESTATION,  the  testimony  of  Christ,  and  making 
some  useful  observations  with  respect  to  its  apphcation, 
he  gives  a  literary  history  of  the  subject  from  the  first 
century  to  our  own.  This  account  comprehends  a 
brief  notice  of  the  most  important  works  on  the 
subjects  above  stated,  which  have  appeared  since  the 
reformation,  together  with  a  sketch  of  the  controver- 
sies and  discussions  which  have  arisen,  either  on  the 
subjects  themselves,  or  on  points  connected  with  them. 
As  a  minute  detail  would  be  inconsistent  with  the 
design  of  this  introductory  chapter,  the  reader  is 
unavoidably  referred  to  the  learned  author  himself  for 

particular  information. 

2* 


EXEGETICAL    THEOLOGY 

PART  I 


SACRED    PHILOLOGY. 

CHAPTER      I  . 

The  third  of  those  different  branches  of  litera- 
ture which  belong  to  exegetical  theology,*  is  what  is 
called  SACRED  philology.  It  may  readily  be  sup- 
posed, that  this  term  must  comprehend  at  least,  more 
kinds  of  knowledge  than  one,  each  of  which  again 
must  bear  its  own  appropriate  appellation.  For  this 
reason  the  extent  of  sacred  philology  may  be  very 
variously  determined,  and  this  has  frequently  been  the 
case,  as  at  different  periods  a  greater  or  less  degree  of 
knowledge  has  been  assigned  to  it ;  but  this  variable- 
ness is  of  no  more  importance  than  the  names  that 
may  be  given  to  the  particular  parts  of  which  the 
subject  IS  composed.  It  is  quite  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence to  what  these  names  are  applied,  and  in  what 
manner,  provided  they  are  applied,  so  as  to  compre- 
hend the  whole.  No  apology  therefore  can  be  necessa- 
ry, if,  in  this  work,  whatever  belongs  on  the  one  side, 

*  The  two  former  arc  apologetic   divinity,  and  historj  of  the 
canon,  as  stated  in  the  introductory  chapter.     Tr 


24  SACRED    PHILOLOGY 

to  an  acquaintance  with  language,  and  on  the  other,  to 
the  knowledge  of  criticism  required  to  settle  and 
explain  the  true  sense  of  our  holy  scriptures,  is  appro- 
priated to  the  department  of  sacred  philology.  Criti- 
cism, It  is  true,  might  be  represented  as  a  distinct  branch 
of  knowledge,  and  philology  be  confined  to  acquaint- 
ance with  language,  yet  it  can  produce  no  incon- 
venience if  the  application  of  the  term  be  so  extended 
as  to  comprehend  both. 

By  the  view  already  suggested,  a  three-fold  object  is 
proposed  with  which  sacred  philology'-  is  to  be  employed, 
or  to  which  its  labors  must  be  directed.  The  know- 
ledge of  languages,  to  be  given  or  collected,  by  its  aid, 
forms  two  divisions,  for  it  is  well  known  that  our 
sacred  books  were  written  in  two  different  languages ; 
criticism  constitutes  its  third  part.  What  learnmg  is 
required  in  order  thoroughly  to  investigate  this  subject, 
why  a  laborious  investigation  of  it  is  necessary,  and 
what  assistance  is  offered  for  the  purpose,  are  the  points 
which  it  IS  my  intention  to  exarmne,  and  to  place  in  a 
clear  light. 

If  we  commence  with  considering  the  knowledge 
of  languages  necessary  to  explain  the  New  Testament, 
it  is  known  to  all,  that  it  is  the  Greek  in  which  the 
writings  belonging  to  this  book  were  composed.  Yet 
it  is  also  equally  known,  that  this  Greek  language  of 
the  New  Testament  is  very  widely  different  from  the 
actual  language  of  ancient  Greece  and  its  national 
writers.  There  was  formerly  indeed  a  class  of  theolo- 
gians, who  were  ready  to  charge  a  man  with  heresy,  if 
he  only  intimated  that  the  apostles  had  not  written  pure 
Greek  ;  but  they  are  now  entirely  extinct,  and  at  pre- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  25 

sent  It  is  universally  acknowledged,  that  the  dialect  of 
the  New  Testament  contains  a  multitude  of  peculiari- 
ties, which  are  as  foreign  to  the  true  Greek  idiom  as 
their  occurrence  in  the  language  of  the  apostles  is  na- 
tural* 

Of  the  truth  of  this,  a  man  may  convince  himself 
at  any  moment  by  an  experience  which  is  incontro- 
vertible. Whoever  has  learned  Greek  merely  from  the 
New  Testament,  or  in  other  words,  whoever,  according 
to  the  method  which  not  a  very  long  time  since  pre- 
vailed in  almost  all  our  schools,  has  learned  only  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  will  undoubtedly  find 
the  Greek  of  Demosthenes,  of  iEschines,  and  of  Thucy- 
dides,  as  strange  and  unintelligible  as  Arabic.  He  may 
be  able  to  translate  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament, 
but  he  will  not  be  able  to  translate  a  single  sentence 
from  the  works  of  those  authors ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  he  understand  these,  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  will  no  longer  be  altogether  strange  to  him, 
although  still  not  altogether  familiar.  This  betrays  too 
plainly  to  be  mistaken  an  intermixture  of  the  peculiari- 
ties of  a  foreign  dialect,  or  rather  of  an  entirely  foreign 
tongue,  which  must  be  found  therein ;  and  indeed,  if 
the  reader  is  not  altogether  unacquainted  with  the  in- 
termingled language,  it  will  strike  his  eye  at  the  first 
look. 

He  immediately  meets,  for  instance,  with  idioms  of 
the  national  language,  which  was  vernacular  in  the 
provinces  in  which  the  authors  of  those  writings  lived, 
and  among  the  people  from  whom  they  descended.    He 

•  Note  II 


26 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK. 


observes  whole  phrases,  Uterally  translated  from  the 
Syro-Chaldaic,  the  language  in  common  use  m  those 
countries.  In  very  many  turns  of  expression,  m  the 
peculiar  use  of  several  particles,  in  the  manner  of  con- 
nectmg  particular  phrases  and  words,  in  the  frequent 
repetition  of  certain  figures  of  speech,  he  immediately 
recognizes  men,  accustomed  from  childhood  to  think  in 
an  oriental  tongue ;  and  from  these  indications  he  is 
ied  to  conjecture  independently  of  much  examination, 
that  many  of  their  expressions  must  not  be  understood 
in  the  signification  which  they  bore  in  pure  Greek,  but 
m  that  which  the  correspondent  expression  in  the  na- 
tional language  conveyed,  and  which  is  merely  thereby 
translated. 

And  if  he  have  no  previous  acquaintance  with  this 
intermingled  language,  the  result  will  still  be  the  same. 
Every  foreign  language,  which  a  people  receive  merely 
as  adventitious  and  which  they  are  forced  to  receive 
by  outward  circumstances,  must  unavoidably  be  com- 
mingled with  the  more  ancient  native  tongue,  if  it  can- 
not fully  supplant  this  tongue :  and  it  must  be  com- 
mingled most  unavoidably  by  the  lower  classes,  who 
have  not  acquired  either  language  according  to  the 
rules  of  grammar,  but  merely  by  intercourse  with 
others  and  through  necessity.  But,  as  certainly  as  the 
former  observation  expresses  the  fact  with  regard  to  the 
Greek  language,  which  was  employed  by  the  Jews  in 
the  time  of  the  Apostles  merely  in  their  intercourse 
with  foreigners  and  strangers ;  so  is  the  latter  applica- 
ble to  most  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  who, 
with  the  exception  probably  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Luke 
merely,  had  undoubtedly  no  other  facility  m  the  use  of 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  2T 

language,  than  that  mechanical  ability  which  inter- 
course, hearing  and  exercise  can  supply. 

It  IS  evident,  then,  that  nothing  but  a  miracle 
could  have  enabled  the  apostles  to  speak  and  write 
pure  Greek,  and  this  miracle  would  have  been  not 
only  without  an  object,  but  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
object  m  view,  since  it  would  have  made  them  less 
intelligible  to  the  very  men,  to  whom  they  were  imme- 
diately to  announce  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  among 
whom  they  were  first  to  brmg  in  circulation  the  senti- 
ments of  his  new  religion.  It  was  therefore  not  only 
a  groundless  notion,  but  m  fact  somewhat  irrational, 
which,  from  reverence  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  the 
scriptures  were  inspired,  was  maintained  in  former 
times  and  supposed  to  be  obligatory,  that  they  are 
written  in  the  very  purest  dialect.  On  the  contrary, 
their  allowed  inspiration  would  rather  justify  the  pre- 
vious conjecture,  that  their  language  cannot  be  pure 
Greek.  For,  undoubtedly,  the  reasoning  is  clear  and 
satisfactory,  that  if  these  writings  are  inspired,  they 
are  probably  composed  in  the  popular  language  of  the 
men  for  whom  they  were  immediately  intended,  and 
consequently  in  the  corrupt  dialect  intermingled  with 
Hebraisms  and  Chaldaisms,  into  wliich  the  genuine 
Greek  must  unavoidably  have  degenerated  among  the 
Jews  in  Palestine.  Yet  these  conjectures  and  supposi- 
tions are  by  no  means  necessary,  for  the  evidence  is 
conspicuous  and  incontrovertible,  and  they  are  the  less 
necessary,  as  at  present  a  divine  is  scarcely  to  be  found 
who  doubts  the  fact. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GEEEK. 


CHAPTER      II 


If  now  this  is  the  case  with  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  is  at  present  distinguished  by 
the  name  of  Hellenistic,  it  becomes  of  itself  abundantly 
evident,  that  a  particular  study  of  this  language  is 
uecessary,  and  also  why  it  is  so.  This  necessity  is  the 
stronger,  as  the  want  of  an  accurate  acquaintance  with 
it  may,  and  inevitably  must  give  rise  to  proportionably 
erroneous  interpretations,  and  to  misconceptions  of  the 
meaning. 

This  acquaintance  is  necessary  in  order  to  under- 
stand a  multitude  of  phrases  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  are  transferred  immediately  from  the  Hebrew, 
and  translated  not  at  all  in  the  spirit,  not  at  all  in  the 
form  of  thought,  but  merely  into  the  words  of  the 
Greek  language.  To  the  expressions,  "kingdom  of 
heaven,  Spirit  of  God — visitation,"  and  many  others, 
which  occur  so  frequently  in  the  Hellenistic  dialect, 
the  pure  Greelc  idiom  attaches  no  clear  sense,  because 
they  were  either  never  used  by  real  Greeks,  or  never 
in  the  sense  of  the  sacred  writers.  And  as  little  does: 
it  know  of  the  significations  which  the  former  so  often 
gave  to  Its  connecting  words  and  particles,  of  which  it 
will  be  sufficient  merely  to  refer,  as  examples,  to  the 
two  prepositions  h?  and  h,  which  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament are  so  very  often  employed,  contrary  to  all 
Greek  usage,  merely  in  the  signification  of  the  Hebrew 
prefix  3. 

But,  without  accurate  acquaintance  with  this  dia- 
lect, the  reader  is  m  the  most  difficult  situation,  when 
he  meets  with  words,  in  themselves  pure  Greek,  and 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  29 

I 'so  in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  in  part  taken  pure 
Greek,  but  which,  by  the  intermixture  of  a  Hebrew 
idea,  may  have  acquired  some  modification,  either 
extending  or  hmiting  their  appUcation.  Cases  of  this 
kind  occur  not  only  very  often,  but  probably  muoh 
ofiener  than  is  supposed,  or  has  yet  been  ascertained- 
When  the  apostles  endeavored  to  express  in  Greek  the 
ideas  which  they  had  formed  for  the  most  part  in 
Hebrew  or  Syro  Chaldaic,*  they  could  not  always  find 
words  altogether  adequate  to  convey  the  entire  thought 
with  all  its  intended  bearings,  as  it  was|.  connected  in 
their  minds  with  the  Hebrew  word.  They  selected 
therefore  the  term  which  expressed  their  conceptions 
the  most  fully,  and  in  its  customary  acceptation  came 
nearest  their  whole  idea,  or  else  that  which  was  a 
literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  word,  although  in  its 
usuaJ  signification  designating  something  else  :  but  still 
it  was  their  intention  to  express  thereby  the  very  same 
idea,  which  the  Hebrew  word  usually  suggested  to 
their  minds. 

With  regard  to  many  words,  very  frequently  occur- 
rmg  m  the  New  Testament,  this  case  undoubtedly 
apphes.     When,  for  example,  the  apostle  wished  to 

express  the  idea  of  the  Hebrew  word  U^l^,  simply 
the  Greek  apfivr,  presented  itself  to  his  mind ;  but  as 
the  Hebrew  term  conveyed  to  a  Jew  much  more  than 
the  other  did  to  a  Greek,  we  may  certainly  suppose, 
that  the  apostle  also  intended  the  surplus  idea  to  lie 
attached  to  the  word,  and  therefore  in  interpreting,  the 
Greek  idea  connected  with  lipvvr,  must  be  amplified  &r 

*  Or,  at  least,  according  to  the  Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldaic 
idiom. — Tr. 

3 


30  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK. 

elevated,  according  to  the  Hebrew  suggested  by  Dl /tJ'. 
The  same  is  undoubtedly  true  of  the  words  iuatoi,  Syios, 
S6ia,  hMdcia,  the  meaning  of  which,  in  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  is  certainly  much  less  frequently 
that  of  the  pure  Greek  usage,  than  of  the  Hebrew 
words  with  which  they  correspond,  and  of  which 
they  are  a  translation. 

If,  then,  a  person  is  not  acquainted  with  this  pecu- 
liarity of  the  language,  he  will  be  the  less  able  to  avoid 
the  danger  of  an  error  in  explaining  the  writings  com- 
posed in  it,  because  he  may  the  more  readily  commit 
one  unconsciously  and  without  observing  it.  If  such 
expressions  are  interpreted  according  to  the  ordinary 
and  incorrupt  Greek  usage,  a  meaning  is  certainly 
gained,  and  indeed  in  very  many  cases,  a  meaning 
which  appears  to  be  sufficiently  appropriate.  The 
older  divines,  who  formerly  applied  to  the  word  suaioi, 
wherever  it  occurred  in  the  New  Testament,  only  the 
Greek  forensic  meaning  of  righteous,  were  always  able 
to  give  sense  and  connexion  to  the  places  where  they 
thus  explained  it;  and  yet  the  interpretation  which 
this  led  them  to  give  it  in  some  places  was  very 
unsound,  since  with  respect  to  many  it  can  be  incon- 
trovertibly  proved,  by  a  more  accurate  acquaintance 
with  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  sense 
which  should  be  expressed  is  not  that  more  limited  one, 
but  rather  the  more  comprehensive  signification  of  the 
Hebrew  p^lV-  Without  this  acquaintance  then,  it 
is,  in  such  cases,  very  possible  indeed  to  miss  the  sense 
of  the  sacred  writer,  at  the  very  time  when  we  suppose 
that  it  can  be  found  with  the  greatest  ease,  and  that  we 
have  found  it  with  the  greatest  certainty  ;  and  princi- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  31 

pally  on  this  account  is  the  study  of  this  language 
altogether  indispensable,  to  enable  us  to  interpret  with 
security  and  confidence. 

These  remarks  on  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  the 
New  Testament  language,  are  sufficient  to  show  the 
importance  of  studying  it.  But  it  is  not  so  easy  to 
perceive  what  helps  can  be  obtained  in  pursuing  this 
study ;  and,  in  fact,  we  are  restricted  to  an  extremely 
small  number. 

The  most  natural  and  usefi.il  must  immediately 
occur  to  every  one.  Since  the  peculiarity  of  this 
"Hellenistic  dialect  consists  in  the  intermingling  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Syro-Chaldaic  idioms  with  the  pure  Greek, 
an  acquaintance  with  the  two  former  languages  must 
of  course  throw  the  most  light  on  it.  But  notwith- 
standing this,  it  is  very  evident,  that  we  could  succeed 
much  better,  particularly,  we  could  distinguish  the  inter- 
mixture with  far  more  accuracy,  observe  it  probably 
much  more  frequently,  and  note  its  characteristic  marks 
with  much  more  certainty,  if  we  were  in  possession 
of  many  works  of  this  period,  written  in  the  same 
dialect.  But  here  we  are  completely  at  a  loss ;  for  even 
the  writings  of  the  almost  contemporaneous  Philo,  m 
which  something  illustrative  might  be  looked  for,  are 
m  language  so  entirely  different  in  its  construction,  that 
they  can  afford  but  little  aid  to  interpretation,  in  the 
comparison  in  which  we  would  willingly  employ  them, 
however  important  may  be  the  assistance  they  can 
offer  it  in  other  respects. 

We  have  yet  another  source  fi-om  which  we  may 
derive  assistance  in  cultivating  a  knowledge  of  this 
dialect,  a  source,  which,  although  not  contemporaneous. 


aZ  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK. 

is,  on  that  account,  in  other  respects  the  more  useful. 
I  mean,  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
is  known  by  the  name  of  the  Septuagint,  This  is  not 
only  for  the  most  part  composed  in  the  Hellenistic 
language,  but  it  may  be  considered  in  a  certain  view  as 
its  onginal  source. 

As  to  the  precise  time  when  this  version  came 
into  circulation,  we  are  quite  as  much  in  the  dark  as 
we  are  concerning  the  causes  that  originated  it,  and  the 
persons  by  whom  it  was  brought  to  a  termination. 
The  old  legend  of  Aristeas  respecting  the  seventy 
interpreters,  who  at  the  wish  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus 
were  dispatched  from  Jerusalem  to  Alexandria,  there 
inclosed  m  as  many  separate  cells,  but  so  inspired  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  that  each  produced  a  translation  cor- 
responding word  for  word  with  those  of  the  others,  is 
now  universally  held  to  be,  what  it  certainly  is,  a  fable. 
From  internal  evidence  however  it  is  demonstrabicv 
that  this  version  cannot  be  the  work  of  one  translator ; 
for  a  comparison  of  particular  books  display  such 
a  difference  m  respect  to  the  style,  the  knowledge  of 
language,  and  the  attention  paid  to  the  translation,  that 
It  must  be  considered  as  the  production  of  many  per- 
sons, very  unequal  in  diligence  and  ability.  Hence 
we  have  also  sufficient  grounds  for  the  supposition,  that 
the  translation  was  probably  not  occasioned  by  one 
external  cause  originating  in  some  coalition,  neither 
did  It  arise  at  one  time,  or  was  even  completed  in  one 
place,  but  that,  in  it§  present  state,  it  may  have  grown 
out  of  a  selection  from  different  translations  of  the  seve- 
ral books  already  extant  after  they  had  been  collected. 
But  who  caused  this  collection  to  be  made,  and  brought 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  33 

together  the  separate  translations  into  one  whole,  are 
points  of  which  we  know  nothing  ;  only  it  is  probable, 
that  this  was  done  originally  in  Egypt  and  at  Alexan- 
dria ;  and  it  is  certain,  that  in  the  time  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  this  version  was  in  general  use  even  among 
the  Jews  in  Palestine.* 

This  last  circumstance,    the   truth  of   which  is 
unquestionable,  is  principally  important  in  showing  its 
utility  in  illustrathig  the  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    In  this  version  the  Hellenistic  language  must 
originally  have  been  formed,  for  in  it  the  Greek  was 
employed  probably  for  the  first  time  to  express  the 
sentiments  of  the  Jews  on  national  and  religious  sub- 
jects, which  had  always  before  been  conceived  exclu- 
sively in  Hebrew.     In  part  the  character  of  these 
sentiments,  and  probably  in  part  also  the  character  of 
the  translators,  made  it  unavoidable,  that  the  Greek  of 
the  version  should  receive  a  considerable  accession  of 
oriental  forms ;  and  to  this  the  desire  of  the  latter  to 
leave  a  translation  as  literal  as  possible  may  perhaps 
liare   contributed.      This  peculiarity  of  the  version 
would  in  the  greatest  degree  favor  the  general  estima- 
tion in  which  it  was  held  by  the  Jews,  as  this  estima- 
tion also  must  necessarily  in  course  of  time  have  made 
the  Greek  of  the  version  the  common  dialect  of  the 
people.     Men  who  belonged  to  the  lower  classes  of  the 
nation,  as  the  apostles  undoubtedly  did,  probably  derived 
from  it  all  their  knowledge  of  the  Greek  tongue.t     The 
religious  sentiments  of  the  whole  nation  were  moulded 
in  no  other  Greek  form  but  that  in  which  they  had 


•  Note  III.  t  Note  IV. 

3* 


34  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK. 

been  received  in  this  translation,  for  the  people  were 
accustomed  from  childhood  to  think  of  them  in  no 
other.  It  was  therefore  more  than  merely  natural,  that 
this  form  should  show  itself  also  in  the  language  of 
the  apostles. 

From  this  statement  it  becomes  exceedingly  evi- 
dent of  what  use  this  version  is,  in  aiding  the  student 
to  acquire  a  more  correct  acquaintance  with  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  evident  to  every 
one  who  looks  into  the  subject,  that  a  multitude  of 
turns  of  expression  and  other  peculiarities  by  which 
the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  is  distinguished,  are 
derived  immediately  from  the  Septuagint,  where  they 
had  before  been  used.  It  is  impossible  therefore  to 
doubt  that  these  idioms  are  of  oriental  extraction,  and 
that  the  sense  to  be  given  to  those  expressions  must  be 
Hebraistic,  smce  a  comparison  of  them  with  the  origi- 
nal mfalhbly  shows  what  tlie  translators  intended  to 
denote  by  them.  And  even  with  regard  to  those 
oriental  forms  connected  with  Greek  expressions  of 
which  the  Septuagint  affords  no  examples,  at  least  none 
precisely  verbal,  it  can  very  often  be  shown  tliat  they 
were  framed  by  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament, 
only  in  accordance  with  the  spirit,  and  according  to 
the  analogy,  of  similar  expressions,  which  the)''  had 
found  in  that  version. 

This  translation  therefore  is  of  the  veiy  highest 
importance  ;  it  is  an  aid  in  acquiring  a  correct  know- 
ledge of  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  which  is 
altogether  indispensable,  and  the  more  especially  as  it 
is  almost  the  only  one  that  we  possess.*  Yet  it  is  quite 
•Note  V. 


STUDY  OF  THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE-  35 

clear,  that  a  pan  of  its  utility  must  arise  from  an 
acquaintance  with  the  original  language  of  the  Old 
Testament.  This  also  becomes  therefore  important  in 
a  variety  of  views,  for  in  many  respects  it  becomes 
immediately  necessary  in  order  to  understand  the 
New  Testament.  But  in  reference  to  this  language 
nothing  need  be  said  in  the  present  chapter,  since,  from 
its  own  importance,  or  on  account  of  those  books  of 
our  holy  scriptures  which  the  Old  Testament  compre- 
hends, it  constitutes  the  second  leading  topic  of  sacred 
phllolog5^ 


CHAPTER       III. 

That,  in  order  to  attain  a  knowledge  of  the  Hel)rew 
language,  a  particular  and  appropriate  study  is  re- 
quired, and  why  this  is  the  case,  it  is  certainly  unne- 
cessary to  show.  We  see,  at  the  fii'st  look,  that  it  has 
so  much  that  is  peculiar,  characteristic,  and,  especially 
in  comparison  with  our  modern  and  western  languages, 
remarkable,  that  its  acquisition  cannot  be  facilitated  by 
an  acquaintance  with  most  others :  and  yet.  in  another 
view,  and  in  consequence  of  other  circumstances,  we 
might  almost  as  easily  be  led  to  suppose,  that,  notwith- 
standing this,  the  particular  study  of  it  need  not  demand 
extraordinary  exertions. 

Although  in  forming  an  acquaintance  with  tin? 
language,  we  are  forcibly  struck  with  its  peculiarities, 
yet  we  soon  perceive  also,  tliat  they  are  few  in  number 
and  have  little  variety.  The  characteristic  j)roperties 
which  mark  its  formation,  its  connexions,  its  inversione. 
must  undoulAedlv  bo  altojjether  new  to  one.  who  froni 


«6  STUDY  OP  THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE. 

his  youth  has  always  been  accustomed  to  a  western 
language ;  but  on  the  other  liand,  it  remains  the  more 
constant,  it  is  subject  to  fewer  changes,  it  has  always 
the  same  forms,  which  the  reader  meets  with  the 
oftener,  and,  which  is  of  the  greatest  importance,  the 
whole  language  is  poorer  in  words  and  expressions 
than  any  other  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  This 
circumstance,  together  with  that  first  adverted  to,  must 
very  considerably  diminish  the  difficulty  of  acquiring 
it.  For  if  the  last  only  be  considered,  it  will  appear 
very  natural,  that  a  language  containing  only  about 
seven  thousand  words,  which  is  the  number  assigned 
to  the  Hebrew,  should  be  learned  much  sooner  than 
another  which  possesses  a  richer  vocabulary. 

This  mode  of  estimating  degrees  of  difficulty  is 
certainly  in  itself  quite  correct,  and  it  would  undoubt- 
edly follow  from  it,  that  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage must  be  easier  than  that  of  any  other,  were  it 
not  for  one  particular  circumstance,  which  again  coni- 
pletely  destroys  the  facility  that  might  otherwise  arise- 
from  the  causes  above  stated.  In  a  language  which 
has  only  seven  thousand  words,  we  may  without  doubt 
soon  acquire  a  readiness,  if  we  have  only  sufficient 
assistance,  to  enable  us  to  ascertain  with  ease  and 
certainty  the  significations  in  which  the  words  are 
used.  The  facility  of  doing  this,  is  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  works  which  are  extant  in  a  language,  for 
the  oftener  we  find  a  word  employed,  and  employed  by 
various  authors  and  in  various  connexions,  the  more 
certain  we  become  as  to  its  meaning,  while,  on  the 
contrary,  the  more  we  are  destitute  of  helps  of  this 
nature,  the  more  difficult  it  must  be  to  arrive  at  cer- 


Sf  UDY  OF  THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE.  37 

tainty ;  and  this  may  make  the  acquisition  of  an  ex- 
ceedingly poor  language  often  more  difficult  than  that 
of  the  richest.  This  is  unhappily  the  case  with  the 
Hebrew, 

It  were  easy  indeed  to  retain  its  seven  thousand 
words ;  but  to  fix  the  signification  of  these  words  with 
some  degree  of  certainty  costs  the  more  labor,  because 
we  have  no  other  Hebrew  work  but  those  which  are 
comprised  in  the  Old  Testament ;  at  least  none  in  the 
dialect  of  those  writings,  and  of  that  age  to  which  they 
belong.  Hence  it  is,  that  of  these  seven  thousand  words 
there  are  many  which  occur  scarcely  six  or  eight  times, 
others  which  are  hardly  found  three  or  four  times,  and 
there  are  even  some  which  in  all  those  writings  are 
only  used  once.  How  is  it  possible  then,  to  arrive  at 
xutficient  certainty  respecting  the  meaning  of  these  last, 
by  any  method,  and  respecting  the  meaning  of  the 
others,  from  the  few  instances  in  which  they  are  to  be 
met  with  ? 

<)n  the  one  hand  there  are  merely  some  kindred 
languages,  and  on  the  other  some  versions,  whereby 
alone  wc  can  be  properly  guided.  The  former 
are  the  Syriac,  Chaldee  and  Arabic,  from  which  tlie 
Hebrew  partly  originated,*  and  in  which  it  has  partly 
lost  itself.  Those  versions  in  particular  are  there 
fore  the  most  usefiil,  which  we  have  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  these  three  languages,  although  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  also,  and  the  different  Greek 
translations,  some  fragments  of  which  we  still  possess, 
may  be  used  with  much  advantage.     In  addition  to 

•  Note  VI. 


38  STUDY  OF  THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE. 

the  Septuagint,  we  know  that  six  other  Greek  versions 
of  the  Old  Testament  were  composed ;  for  Origen  in 
his  Hexapla,  besides  that  and  the  translations  of  Theo- 
dotion,  Aquila  and  Symmachus,  collated  a  fifth,  sixth 
and  seventh,  which  were  extant  in  his  time,  although 
they  did  not  comprehend  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Since  it  is  now  certain,  that  they  were  all 
made  from  the  Hebrew  text,  it  is  easy  to  be  perceived 
that  they  might  be  as  useflil  for  understanding  it,  as 
those  which  we  have  in  the  kindred  languages. 

From  these  we  are  not  only  able  to  determine  with 
confidence  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  words,  but  we 
receive  also  through  them,  especially  through  the 
Arabic  and  Syriac  versions,  some  light  respecting  the 
derivation  of  many  words.  From  the  same  source  we 
receive  further  disclosures  relating  to  the  use  of  proper 
and  figurative  language  in  Hebrew;  we  find  its  sense 
and  spirit  more  clearly  expressed  in  the  forms,  which 
are  similar  although  somewhat  differently  turned,  by 
which  they  represent  them ;  we  become  more  familiar 
with  those  forms  of  the  oriental  mode  of  thinking  ; 
and,  lastly,  we  are  able  to  arrive  at  more  perfect  con- 
viction of  the  correctness  of  whatever  is  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  Hebrew  text  from  this  source,  because 
we  have  many  works  still  extant  in  these  languages. 

By  means  of  these  helps,  it  is  certainly  possible  to 
acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  language  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, but  only  by  their  means.  No  one  therefore 
will  continue  to  suppose  that  its  acquisition  is  a  very 
light  matter.  The  application  of  these  helps  presumes 
tlie  study  of  those  kindred  languages,  and  however 
easy  this  mav  be  as  to  the  Chaldee  and  Svriac,  it  is 


SACRED  CRITICISM.  39 

quite  the  contrary  with  the  others.  In  the  Arabic,  the 
difficulty  arises  from  its  richness,  and  in  the  Samaritan, 
Irom  the  total  want  of  documents  remaining  in  it ;  for 
It  is  only  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  and  in  some 
coins  with  Samaritan  inscriptions,  that  the  language  is 
preserved. 

What  has  been  said  is  undoubtedly  sufficient,  to 
give  in  general  a  just  idea  of  the  most  important  points 
connected  with  the  study  of  sacred  philology,  so  far  as 
relates  immediately  to  the  knowledge  of  the  languages, 
wiiich  is  indispensably  necessary  to  interpret  the  holy 
scriptures.  It  is  proper  now  to  treat  of  the  third 
branch  of  literature  belonging  to  this  subject,  namely, 
sacred  criticism.  The  nature  of  this  department,  and 
the  subjects  in  which  it  is  occupied,  will  show  in  the 
clearest  manner,  why  it  is  very  properly  considered  as 
a  part  of  sacred  philology. 


CHAPTER      IV. 

The  immediate  object  of  sacred  criticism  is,  not 
to  understand  and  interpret  the  holy  scriptures,  but  to 
examine  their  genuineness  and  incorruptness,  and  that 
not  only  in  general  but  also  in  particular  places. 
But  even  this  does  not  constitute  the  whole  of  what 
this  subject  comprehends.  Criticism  must  determint', 
whether  the  text  of  our  sacred  scriptures,  in  its  present 
state,  is  in  all  its  parts  in  the  same  condition,  in  which 
it  originally  came  from  the  hands  of  its  authors.  In 
other  words,  for  every  separate  passage  it  must  give 
reasons,  and  satisfactory  reasons  too,  why  it  should  be 
considered  as  entirely  unaltered,   or  else  as   having 


40  SACRED  CRITICISM. 

sustained  some  change.  And,  in  the  latter  case,  when 
it  has  reasons  to  conjecture  that  an  alteration  has  taken 
place,  Its  province  is,  to  propose  the  surest  means,  by 
which  the  place  may  be  restored,  with  the  greatest 
certainty  or  probability,  to  its  original  condition. 

The  duty  of  criticism  is,  therefore,  two-fold  :  in  the 
first  place,  to  discover  the  changes  which  have  taken 
place  in  the  original  text;  and  then,  to  restore  tire 
genuine  readings  which  have  been  excluded  by  theiii. 
We  do  not  therefore  include  all  that  this  department 
comprehends,  if  we  limit  our  ideas  of  it  to  an  acquamt- 
ance,  in  all  their  extent,  with  those  principles,  by  which 
the  genuineness  of  a  writing  may  be  examined,  judged 
of  and  proved.  Undoubtedly  criticism  is  required  for 
these  purposes ;  but  it  is  required  also  for  more  than 
these  ;  its  application  is  necessary  even  in  those  writ- 
mgs,  the  integrity  of  which  has  already  in  general 
been  examined  and  proved. 

The  integrity  of  a  writing  is  not  necessarily  iniured 
by  every  change  which  its  text  may  have  undergone  ; 
but  for  this  reason,  it  may  be  useful,  and  important  m 
many  respects,  to  know  those  changes  also  which  have 
not  directly  corrupted  a  writing.  This  can  afford 
criticism  sufficient  employment,  even  in  those  writings 
the  integrity  of  which  is  already  attested,  as  criticism 
can  here  perform  sufficient  service.  It  is  this  especr 
ally,  which  makes  it  a  study  of  its  own,  and  necessary 
in  relation  to  our  sacred  scriptures.  That  criticism 
which  IS  only  required  to  prove  their  integrity  in  gene- 
ral, is  satisfied  with  very  few  principles  and  helps ; 
but  to  discover  and  correct  all  isolated  alterations,  m 
the  smallest  points,  very  many  more  and  in  part  entirely- 


SACRED  CRITICISM.  41 

different  are  riecessary,  the  application  of  which  is 
more  difficult,  even  in  the  proportion  in  which  it  often 
becomes  necessary. 

Previously  to  any  examination  of  the  subject,  it 
may  readily  be  imagined,  that  there  are  none  of  our 
sacred  books,  which  have  not  experienced  such  changes 
in  particular  places,  and  even  in  a  multitude  of  instan- 
ces. It  is  altogether  inconceivable  that  writings,  some 
of  which  were  to  be  preserved  several  thousand  years 
merely  by  means  of  transcribed  copies,  and  which  were 
in  fact  preserved  by  those  means,  under  the  hands  of  a 
vast  variety  of  men,  whose  opinions  respecting  their 
contents  were  equally  various,  should  have  remained, 
without  any  alteration,  in  the  state  in  which  they 
originally  proceeded  from  their  authors.  It  would  be 
necessary,  as  has  been  before  remarked,  to  suppose  a 
perpetual  miracle  through  all  that  period,  merely  to 
make  this  possible;  but  since  nothing  in  the  world 
justifies  such  a  supposition,  we  certainly  cannot  be 
surprised,  if  each  of  those  writings  discloses  innumera- 
ble traces  of  some  foreign  hand. 

Still,  however,  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  sup- 
pose, that  these  traces  must  always  have  arisen  from 
the  hand  of  a  corruptor.  It  may  very  well  be  thought, 
that  in  all  these  changes  the  text  has  really  not  been 
interpolated  or  corrupted  in  its  essential  contents :  but 
yet  we  perceive  why  it  may  still  be  very  proper,  indeed 
often  very  important,  to  trace  out  these  changes  by  tlie 
aid  of  criticism,  althoug^h  wc  are  previously  convinced 
that  essentially  no  corruption  has  thereby  been  pro- 
duced.     Something,  nevertheless,   has  the  scripture 

thereby  lost.     The  sense  of  the  author  mav  at  least 

4 


42  SACRED  CRITICISM. 

thereby  be  occasionally  obscured.  A  misconception 
of  it  becomes  now  the  easier,  and,  which  is  of  chief 
importance,  we  never  know  with  entire  certainty, 
whether  changes  have  not  taken  place  also  in  mat- 
ters of  importance,  and  the  contents  essentially  suf- 
fered, until  we  have  availed  ourselves  of  all  those 
means  by  which  we  can  receive  certainty  on  this 
subject. 

It  cannot  therefore  be  doubted,  that  the  application 
of  criticism  to  the  treatment  of  the  Bible  is  quite  as 
necessaiy  and  useful,  as  to  that  of  any  ancient  writer. 
Indeed,  with  regard  to  the  former,  it  must  be  more 
useful  and  more  necessary,  in  the  same  proportion  in 
which  Its  contents  are  to  us  more  important  and  inter- 
esting. But  now  the  principal  inquiry  is  : — ^what  are 
the  means,  by  the  assistance  of  which,  it  may  hope  to 
pursue  the  two  objects  that  belong  to  it,  with  some 
degree  of  success. 

It  is  certainly  not  unnatural  to  anticipate  the  judg- 
ment, that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  be  easy, 
for  it  may  readily  be  pre-supposed  that  in  neither  may 
criticism  venture  to  derive  aid  or  satisfaction  from 
empty  conjectures.  Merely  to  suppose  that  interpola- 
tions might  be  in  the  text,  could  be  of  no  more  service 
to  us  than  to  frame  conjectures  respecting  the  original 
reading ;  but  even  to  make  such  suppositions  certain 
signs  and  marks  are  necessary,  for  these  are  not  mat- 
ters to  be  blindly  guessed  at. 

Happily,  there  are  many  of  those  signs  and  marks, 
from  which  more  than  bare  conjectures  can  be  drawn. 
The  knowledge  and  application  of  them  constitute  the 
essentials  of  criticism ;  but  the  knowledge  is  as  compli- 


SACRED  CRITICISM.  43 

caled  as  the  application  is  difficult,  and  also  in  but  too 
many  cases  uncertain. 

Four  principal  sources  are  usually  admitted,  from 
which  criticism  may  draw  those  indications  and  helps 
on  which  it  is  principally  to  rely,  partly  to  ascertain 
what  changes  have  taken  place,  and  partly  to  restore 
the  orio-inal  readings;  and  from  these  sources,  they 
must,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  subject,  be  drawn. 

The  first  is,  an  accurate  acquaintance  with  the 
pecuharities  of  the  language,  wherem  not  merely  the 
sacred  scriptures  in  general,  but  each  particular  book 
was  composed. 

The  second  is,  a  comparison  of  the  various  manu- 
scripts or  copies  which  we  have  of  them,  originating 
at  various  periods. 

The  third  consists  of  the  various  translations  which 
have  been  made  of  them  into  foreign  languages. 

The  fourth  and  last,  which  must  be  employed  but 
seldom,  springs  from  the  writings  and  remains  of  the 
earlier  fathers,  and  generally  of  the  earlier  ecclesiastical 
writers,  who  have  made  some  use  of  the  Bible. 

It  is  in  general  easy  to  perceive  in  what  manner 
criticism  can  avail  itself  of  these  four  sources,  and  even 
what  materials,  useful  for  the  object  it  has  in  view,  it 
may  draw  from  each  of  them.  But  to  make  use  of 
any  one  of  them  some  skill  is  necessary,  and  also  some 
directions  to  enforce  caution,  because  of  the  number  of 
mmor  circumstances,  by  which  the  nature  and  import 
of  what  is  drawn  from  each  may  so  easily  be  altered. 
In  forming  an  estimate  of  this,  such  a  variety  of  points 
must  be  considered,  that  it  becomes  necessary  to  take 
some  notice  of  each  in  particular. 


44  PECULIARITIES  OF  LANGUAGE. 


CHAPTER     V. 

The  first  of  those  sources  of  assistance  in  criticism 
which  have  been  mentioned — that  namely  wliich  is 
afforded  by  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  language  of 
the  sacred  scriptures — is  undoubtedly  the  most  natural, 
and  on  tliis  account  also  it  is  principally  to  be  relied 
on  ;  and  indeed  in  most  cases  it  is  easiest  to  be  applied. 
The  greatest  part  of  those  interpolations,  which  have 
arisen  merely  from  incidental  errors  of  copyists,  inter- 
change of  particular  letters,  transpositions  and  omis- 
sions, must  generally  be  discovered  by  this  ;  and  often 
they  ai'e  thus  infallibly  discovered ;  for  in  the  greatest 
number  of  such  cases  the  transcriber  must  have  com- 
mitted an  error,  as  the  altered  word  must  almost  always 
receive  a  form  or  termination  not  analogous  to  the 
grammar  of  the  language. 

Whenever  therefore  we  meet  with  a  passage  or  a 
word,  the  grammatical  construction  of  which  is  in- 
correct, or  which  is  connected  with  another,  contrary 
to  the  principles  and  usage  of  the  language,  we  have 
just  ground  for  suspecting,  that  in  this  place  the  text 
has  suffered  a  change  ;  and  this  suspicion  rises  to  cer- 
tainty, when,  as  is  generally  the  case,  the  reading  which 
is  gi'ammatically  correct  may  be  restored  by  a  slight 
alteration.  If,  for  instance,  we  find  in  one  place  the 
article  «  in  the  nominative,  where  the  rules  of  gram- 
mai"  reciuire  the  accusative,  we  may  believe  with  the 
greater  certainty  that  bv  is  the  genuine  original  reading, 
in  proportion  as  it  is  easy  to  conceive  how  readily  the 
error  may  have  arisen,  merely  through  the  interchange 
of  the  two  letters,  from  a  transcriber  acquainted  with  the 


PECULIARITIES  OF  LANGUAGE.  45 

language,  and  much  more  from  one  who  was  ignorant 
of  It." 

In  this  way  a  multitude  of  errors  may  not  only  be 
exposed,  but  immediately  corrected,  by  grammatical 
acquaintance  with  the  language.  Only,  with  respect 
to  the  writmgs  of  the  New  Testament,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, that  a  judgment  is  to  be  formed,  not  accord- 
ing to  the  grammatical  principles  of  the  pure  Greek, 
but  of  the  Hellenistic  dialect,  with  which  therefore  it 
is  necessary  to  be  particularly  acquainted.  If  all  were 
to  be  considered  as  interpolated  which  is  not  pure 
Greek,  or  if  among  a  large  collection  of  various  read- 
ings the  pure  Greek  sliould  always  be  preferred,  more 
interpolations  would  undoubtedly  be  made  than  re- 
moved ;  and  therefore,  we  should  lay  it  down  as  a 
principle,  that  when  a  choice  is  to  be  made  between 
two  readings,  one  of  which  is  Hellenistic  and  the 
other  pure  Greek,  if  in  other  respects  they  are  of  equal 
authority,  the  former  is  to  be  preferred.  Thus,  for 
example,  the  preposition  ds  is  used  in  a  multitude  of 
places  in  the  New  Testament,  where  every  pure  Greek 
dialect  would  have  employed  h ,  and  this  has  occasion- 
ally induced  a  transcriber  to  change  the  former,  which 
lie  supposed  to  be  erroneous,  into  the  latter,  which  in 
his  judgment  was  more  correct.  In  many  of  these 
places  therefore  we  find  various  readings,  of  which 
one  has  £k  and  the  other  t-v,  and  we  may  almost  infalli- 
bly conclude  the  latter  to  be  interpolated,  as  the  use  of 
cis  lor  iv  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  peculiarities  of 
the  Hellenistic  language,  m  which  and  not  in  pure 
Greek  the  apostles  wrote. 

*  Note  VII. 
4* 


46  PECULIARITIES  OF  LANGUAGE. 

But  this  knowledge  of  the  grammar  and  general 
peculiarities  of  the  languages  of  scripture,  is  not  in  all 
cases  sufficient :  criticism  frequently  requires  a  know- 
ledge of  those  nicer  peculiarities,  which  distinguished 
various  writings  composed  in  the  same  dialect.  In 
other  words  it  is  necessary  not  only  to  possess  a  gene- 
ral acquaintance  with  the  idioms  of  the  Hellenistic 
and  Hebrew  languages,  but  with  those  also  which  are 
peculiar  to  each  particular  author,  and  form  the  cha- 
racteristics of  his  style. 

The  variety  of  these  peculiarities  in  the  sacred 
writers  is  quite  as  striking  in  those  who  wrote  in 
Hebrew,  as  it  is  in  those  who  wrote  in  Greek.  With 
respect  to  the  former,  the  length  of  time  wliich  sepa- 
rated some  from  others  must  undoubtedly  have  a 
bearing  on  this  remarkable  variety ;  for  it  is  incon- 
ceivable, that  tlie  language  of  the  more  modern  pro- 
phets should  entirely  correspond  with  that  of  Moses, 
who  preceded  them  about  a  thousand  years.  In  those 
writers  also,  who  were  much  more  nearly  coeval  the 
varieties  with  which  the  difference  of  personal  cha- 
racter, of  the  education  and  discipline  by  which  each 
individual  was  formed,  and  of  the  course  of  thought 
peculiar  to  each,  must  mark  their  language,  are  as 
cleaj-ly  exhibited,  as  in  the  works  of  the  contemporane- 
ous authors  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  they  force 
themselves  on  the  attention  of  the  reader. 

The  difference  between  the  style  of  Jeremiah  and 
that  of  Ezeldel  is  as  remarkable  as  that  between  the 
mode  of  writing  of  the  apostle  Paul  and  St.  John. 
But  still,  however  often  and  plainly  these  varieties 
present  themselves  on  the   whole   and  in  general,  it 


PECULIARITIES  OF  LANGUAGE.  47 

requires  nmcli  more  than  a  grammatical;  it  requires  a 
very  philosophical  knowledge  of  language,  to  appre- 
hend tliem  in  particular  cases. 

It  is  very  easy  to  observe,  that  one  writer  has  used 
certain  expressions  in  a  different  sense  from  another, 
or  has  employed  certain  expressions  oftener  than  the 
other  ;  that  the  connexions  of  his  own  ideas  are  desig- 
nated by  his  own  connecting  words ;  that  he  has  ac- 
customed himself  to  certain  constructions,  inversions, 
parallehsms,  metaphors  or  other  figures  of  speech ;  that 
he  has  taken  more  or  less  pains  with  respect  to  gram- 
matical correctness,  force,  brevity,  or  the  harmony  and 
euphony  of  his  style  ;  and  that,  consequently,  his  lan- 
guage assumes  a  definite  character,  which  it  is  impos- 
sible to  mistake.  But  all  these  general  observations 
are  not  sufficient  for  the  use  of  criticism.  It  must 
trace  out  the  reasons  of  these  peculiarities  in  the  parti- 
cular character  of  the  writer.  It  must  examine,  how 
he  has  acquired  or  can  have  acquired  them.  It  must 
laboriously  apply  itself  to  learn  how  his  language  was 
formed ;  and  not  until  then  can  it  draw  any  sure 
opinions  from  these  peculiarities,  for  not  until  then 
can  It  be  satisfied,  that  what  it  has  remarked  are  not 
merely  incidental  varieties  of  style. 

No  other  knowledge  of  language  than  this  deserves 
the  name  of  critical,  and  we  are  fully  justified  in 
distinguishing  it  from  that  which  is  merely  philo- 
logical or  grammatical,  for  it  must  be  drawn  from 
sources  entirely  different  from  this.  But  it  is  self- 
evident,  how  much  it  can  and  must  be  employed  in 
the  criticism  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  and  how  neces- 
sary it  is  in  that  principal  subject,  the  restoration  ol 


48  COMPARISON  OF  MANUSCRIPTS. 

the  original  and  genuine  readings  in  interpolated 
places. 

It  IS  very  often,  for  instance,  the  case  in  those 
writings,  that  transcribers,  who  possessed  no  such  cri- 
tical knowledge  of  the  characteristic  style  ol'  each 
autlior.  either  considered  some  peculiarity  of  tlus  kind 
that  occurred  as  an  error,  and  introduced  an  arbitrary 
alteration,  or  undertook  to  alter  the  copy,  in  order  to 
make  the  place  correspond  better  with  another  of  simi- 
lar contents,  ^vllich  dwelt  in  their  recollection,  from  some 
other  writing.  In  all  such  cases,  it  is  evident  that 
nothing  can  remove  the  error,  but  that  knowledge  of 
language  to  the  want  of  which  it  is  alone  to  be  attri- 
buted. 

But  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  there  are  innumerable 
other  cases,  in  which  this  help  is  not  of  itself  sufficient. 
In  by  far  the  greatest  number,  it  becomes  necessary  to 
connect  with  it  a  second,  that  namely  which  is  offered 
to  criticism  by  the  collation  of  the  different  copies  of 
our  sacred  books  which  can  be  procured.  This  is  un- 
doubtedly the  resource  in  which  it  is  necessary  for  it 
most  frequently  to  take  refuge  :  and,  in  the  one  depart- 
ment of  its  duty,  tliis  can  also  with  the  greatest  ease 
and  certainly  afford  assistance  ;  but  it  is  necessary  to 
add,  that  in  the  second  and  more  important,  the  aid 
that  must  be  expected  from  it,  is  neither  so  great  nor 
so  much  to  be  relied  on  as  might  certainly  be  wished. 

This  comparison  of  various  manuscripts  may  be 
employed  in  the  detection  of  interpolated  places,  with 
far  more  advantage  than  any  other  means.  So  soon 
as  various  readings  are  discovered  to  exist  in  various 
manuscripts,  it  is  decided,  that  in  one  or  more  the  text 


A 


COMPARISON  OF  MANUSCRIPTS.  49 

must  necessarily  have  undergone  a  change.  And 
a^ain,  when  all  agree,  an  interpolation  can  hardly 
be  supposed,  unless  in  some  word  a  striking  gram- 
matical error  occurs,  which  is  not  to  be  explained 
by  any  peculiarity,  elsewhere  made  known  to  us,  of 
the  sacred  writer's  style.  Indeed,  in  cases  of  this  kind. 
It  is  always  somewhat  doubtful,  when  no  result  is  pro- 
duced by  the  collation  of  manuscripts  ;  so  that  we 
may  almost  venture  to  maintain,  that  this  should  never 
be  omitted,  if  complete  certainty  is  required  with  respect 
to  an  interpolation. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  in  the  correction  of 
mterpolated  places,  we  may  very  easily  promise  our- 
selves more  aid  from  this  means  of  assistance  than  it 
is  able  to  afford. 

This  inconvenience  is  principally  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  condition,  or  rather  the  uncertainty  we  are  in 
respecting  the  condition,  of  most  of  the  manuscripts 
which  we  are  able  to  collate.  Still,  however,  notwith- 
standing all  this  uncertainty,  they  are  not  entirely  use- 
less for  that  purpose :  but  to  make  use  of  them  very 
many  cautions  and  rules  are  necessary,  which  criticism 
must  observe,  and  conditions,  which  it  must  prescribe 
to  itself  These  rules  and  conditions  cannot  always  be 
fully  complied  with  ;  and  even  where  this  is  practica- 
ble, they  do  not  always  at  first  afford  full  and  sufficient 
certainty. 

For  example  :  it  may  be  thought,  that  the  genuine 
reading  of  a  corrupted  passage  can  with  sufficient  ease 
and  certainty  be  determined  by  those  which  arc  found 
in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts,  and  also  in  the  great- 
est number.     Criticism  therefore  really  assumes  it  as  a 


i 


50  COMPARISON  OF  MANUSCRIPTS. 

principle,  that  the  reading  of  an  older  manuscript  is 
generally  preferable  to  that  of  one  which  is  more 
modern,  and  is  with  greater  probability  to  be  regarded 
as  thie  original  reading ;  for- it  concludes,  and  not  with- 
out reason,  that  the  copy  which  approaches  the  nearer 
to  the  age  of  the  original  must  contain  fewer  aberra- 
tions from  it  than  one  more  remote,  or  that  the  writmg 
which  has  passed  through  fewer  hands  must  have  been 
subjected  to  fewer  changes.  And  in  general  this  may 
be  perfectly  correct.  But  sometimes  this  reasoning 
gives  no  great  satisfaction,  for  it  is  only  from  a  certaiti 
and  definite  age  of  a  manuscript  that  this  inference  can 
be  rightly  drawn ;  and  then,  how  many  exceptions 
must  be  allowed  ?  how  many  cases  must  be  granted  to 
be  possible  at  least,  which  again  may  cast  some  doubt 
on  the  authority  of  the  oldest  copy  ? 

The  most  ancient  manuscript  that  we  possess  can 
hardly  be  placed  as  high  as  the  fifth  century,*  for  many 
critics  would  make  it  still  more  modern.  But  if  it  be 
as  old  as  that  century,  and  if  we  have  many  of  equal 
antiquity,  they  are  still  four  hundred  years  removed 
from  the  autographs.  In  this  course  of  time  numer- 
ous corruptions  may  have  taken  place,  and  thus  it  may 
even  be  doubtful,  whether,  in  comparing  them  with 
more  modern  manuscripts,  a  very  great  degree  of  im- 
portance should  be  attached  to  their  antiquity. 

It  is  possible  that  a  manuscript,  which  is  two  or 
three  centuries  later,  one  for  instance  of  the  seventh 
or  eighth  century,  might  be  copied  from  another  of 
still  higher  antiquity  than  the  Alexandrine  ;  for  it  may 
certainly  be  conceived,  that  in  the  seventh  or  eighth 
•  Note  VIII. 


I 


COMPARISON  OF  MANUSCRIPTS.  51. 

century  a  manuscript  of  the  third  may  have  been 
somewhere  concealed.  In  this  case  then  the  regard 
due  to  antiquity  must  not  be  determined  in  favor  of 
the  manuscript  written  in  the  fifth  century,  but  of  that 
which  belongs  to  the  seventh. 

But  should  it  even  be  supposed,  that  we  are  in 
possession  of  a  manuscript  written  in  the  third  or 
indeed  in  the  second  century  ;  can  criticism  venture  to 
consider  its  age  alone  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  conclud- 
uig  with  confidence  that  all  its  readings  correspond  with 
the  original  ?  If  the  copy  were  made  by  an  ignorant, 
inattentive,  negligent  transcriber,  and  certainly  there 
were  such  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  as  well  as 
in  tlie  seventh  and  eighth,  its  high  antiquity  would  not 
benefit  us.  Other  remarks,  therefore,  to  prove  the  accu- 
racy of  a  manuscript,  must  certainly  be  added  to  those, 
l^fore  we  can  decide  upon  its  genuineness  from  its 
antiquity. 

More  easily  still  may  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  to 
much  greater  danger  of  error  shall  we  be  exposed,  if  we 
determine  the  genuineness  of  a  reading  by  the  greater 
or  less  number  of  the  manuscripts  which  contain  it, 
and  consequently  found  our  decisions  upon  the  agree- 
ment of  many  against  a  few. 

The  reason  why  the  same  reading  is  found  in 
many  manuscripts  may  be  this,  that  they  were  copied 
from  each  other,  or  that  they  are  all  copies  of  some 
more  ancient  manuscript  used  in  common.  In  this 
case,  they  can  have  altogetlier  no  more  than  one  voice, 
for  altogether  they  prove  nothing  more  than  this  ;  that 
the  one  manuscript  from  which  they  were  all  copied 
contained  the  reading  in  question. 


52  CLASSIFICATION  OF  MANUSCRIPTS. 

But  frequently  a  reading  may  also  have  been  in- 
troduced into  many  copies,  on  this  account,  because  its 
very  character  recommended  it  in  the  same  way  to 
mauy  transcribers. 

Thus  a  suspicion  of  its  genuineness  may  often  be 
excited ;  for  it  was  frequently  the  case,  that  they  suf- 
fered themselves  to  be  led  astray,  by  plausible  reasons, 
to  regard  the  genuine  reading  as  interpolated,  and  to 
introduce  in  its  place  another  which  they  supposed  to 
be  preferable. 

In  consequence  of  these  circumstances,  criticism, 
very  pmdently,  has  always  subjoined  limitations  to  the 
law,  which  determines  the  correctness  of  a  reading  by 
the  majority  of  the  manuscripts  in  wliich  it  is  contained- 
It  grants  no  more  than  this,  that  a  majority  of  those 
manuscripts,  which  can  be  fully  proved  to  have  arisen 
from  different  original  sources,  or,  in  the  language  of 
modern  criticism,  that  are  of  different  recensions,  can 
determine  any  thing  on  this  subject.  If  it  can  be 
shown,  for  instance,  that  a  manuscript,  which  was 
copied  at  Constantinople,  agrees,  as  to  a  particular 
reading,  with  another  made  in  Egypt,  and  also  with  a 
third  derived  from  the  west,  then  surely  a  probable 
conclusion  may  be  drawn  in  favor  of  the  genuineness 
of  that  reading ;  for  all  the  presumptions  for  this  conclu- 
sion are,  that  the  manuscripts  belong  to  different  families, 
and  all  against  it,  that,  in  manuscripts  altogether  dis- 
tinct from  each  other,  a  passage  might  be  interpolated 
in  exactly  the  same  way. 

Yet,  however  iiscfi.il  to  criticism  this  view  of  the 
derivation  of  manuscripts  may  be,  and  this  distribution 
of  them  into  certain  classes,   which  is   undoubtedly 


RECENSION  OF  MANUSCRIPTS.  53 

necessary,  it  will  always  involve  a  multitude  of  diffi- 
culties, which  must  naturally  modify  in  a  great  degree 
its  utility.  By  means  of  the  most  laborious  researches, 
the  latest  efforts  of  criticism  have  resulted  in  the  conclu- 
sion, that  most  of  the  manuscripts  which  we  possess 
belong  to  three  families,  or  may  be  traced  to  three 
recensions,  the  diversity  of  which  cannot  be  doubted. 
An  Alexandrine,  a  Constantinopolitan,  and  a  Western 
copy,  may  have  been  the  originals  of  all  the  manu- 
scripts, amounting  to  some  hundreds,  which  we  have 
of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  Another  re- 
cension, arising  from  Asia,  may  perhaps  be  added,  to 
these  ;  but  here,  in  too  many  individual  manuscripts,  it 
is  exceedingly  difficult  to  determine  to  what  class  they 
belong,  since  very  frequently  they  bear  the  family  marks 
of  several* 

But  while  this  subject  is  unsettled,  our  conclusions 
must  be  proportionably  insecure,  since,  as  was  before 
said,  we  have  scarcely  any  manuscript  more  ancient 
than  the  sixth  century ;  and  consequently,  it  is  upon 
the  whole  quite  certain,  that  the  collation  of  manu- 
scripts can  render  criticism  a  service  much  more  to  be 
relied  on,  in  the  discovery  of  interpolations,  than  in  re- 
storing the  genuine  readings. 

Sometimes  indeed  it  is  happily  the  case,  that  these 
may  be  ascertained,  with  the  highest  degree  of  proba- 
bility, from  the  others.  When  the  manner  of  a  tran- 
scriber is  thoroughly  known,  it  occasionally  and  indeed 
often  happens,  that  the  mere  shape  of  a  letter,  the  position 
of  a  line,  the  form  of  a  mark  of  abbreviation,  the  similar 

*  This  subject  of  recensions  will  come  under  consideration  sub- 
sequently in  a  note.     Tr. 

5 


54  USE  OP  THE  VERSIONS. 

sounds  of  some  words,  the  necessity  of  a  division  of 
a  word,  and  several  minor  circumstances  of  this  kind, 
enable  us  to  conjecture  with  confidence,  how  the 
genuine  reading  became  changed  in  the  hand  of  a 
copyist.  In  this  way,  many  discoveries,  which  are 
certainly  not  unimportant,  have  already  been  made ; 
but  it  must  freely  be  confessed  that,  in  this  way,  all 
has  not  been  gained  that  could  be  wished,  and  which, 
considering  the  prodigious  degree  of  learning  and 
labor  which  has  already  been  exhausted,  we  are  doubly 
tempted  to  wish  for. 

Yet  this  learning  and  labor  are  not  to  be  regretted, 
since  assistance  of  this  kind  is  absolutely  necessary  for 
criticism.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  doubted, 
that  the  advantage,  in  correcting  the  sacred  text,  which 
criticism  might  draw  from  the  collation  of  manuscripts, 
would  be  still  more  equivocal,  unless  it  were  able  to 
add  also  a  third  means,  which  is  particularly  well 
adapted  to  try  the  genuineness  of  the  benefit,  which 
may  be  derived  from  the  collation  of  the  manuscripts. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

The  third  means  just  referred  to  is  afforded  by  the 
versions  of  the  sacred  scriptures.  These,  as  we  have 
seen,  are  very  important  in  reference  to  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  languages  in  which  they  were  written, 
but  they  may  almost  be  said  to  be  even  more  so  in 
reference  to  criticism.  There  is  one  circumstance, 
especially,  which  makes  them  so  highly  useful,  although 
it  must  be  allowed  that  it  is  applicable  exclusively  to 
the  New  Testament. 


USE  OF  THE  VERSIONS.  55 

Some  of  the  versions  which  we  have  of  it  are  con- 
siderably older  than  all  our  manuscripts.  The  Syriac, 
for  example,  belongs  most  probably  to  the  second  cen- 
tury. The  fragments  of  the  old  Latin  versions,  which 
are  frequently  comprehended  under  the  name  of  Italic, 
cannot  be  much  later.  The  Gothic  of  Ulphilas  was 
made  in  the  fourth  century,  and  of  course  what  remains 
of  it  is  of  the  same  age ;  and  of  the  Arabic  versions  in 
our  possession,  one  at  least  is  certainly  of  very  high 
antiquity. 

The  importance  of  this  circumstance  is  extremely 
evident.  In  all  cases  it  may  be  presumed,  that  these 
translations  were  made  from  manuscripts,  which  at  the 
time  were  not  entirely  new ;  and  therefore  the  £ige  of 
some  may  have  almost  reached  that  of  the  autographs. 
Consequently,  whenever  it  can  be  determined,  from  one 
of  these  versions,  what  was  the  reading  of  the  manu- 
script from  which  the  version  was  made,  its  antiquity 
gives  it  an  authority  vastly  superior  to  that  which  any 
manuscript  now  existing  can  claim. 

That  the  readings  of  those  manuscripts  may  often 
be  learned  from  the  versions  with  the  greatest  certainty, 
and  how  this  information  may  be  obtained  from  them, 
is  self-evident ;  but  it  may  also  be  remarked,  that  the 
advantage  afforded  in  such  cases  is  the  more  important, 
since,  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  it  can  scarcely  ever 
exist  except  in  weighty  and  important  variations. 

In  most  of  those  insignificant  changes  of  reading, 
where  the  whole  difference  often  lies  merely  in  the 
omission  of  an  article,  the  transposition  of  a  word,  or 
the  alteration  of  the  tense  of  a  verb,  it  is  certainly  not 
easy  to  conjecture  from  the  versions  what  the  reading 


56  dUOTATlONS  IN  THE  FATHERS. 

may  have  been  iii  the  manuscript  used  by  the  trans- 
lator. But  in  such  cases  as  affect  whole  words  com- 
muted, phrases  omitted  or  interpolated,  or  even  sen- 
tences and  whole  periods  rejected,  the  conclusions  to  be 
drawn  from  the  versions  are  necessarily  as  determmate 
as  they  are  certain.  In  such  cases,  the  reading  given 
in  the  version,  may  with  confidence  be  regarded  as  the 
reading  of  the  manuscript,  and  the  authority  of  this 
manuscript  may  often  with  sufficient  certainty  be  con- 
sidered as  decisive,  if  it  can  only  be  strengthened  by 
some  evidence  of  probability  of  an  internal  kind. 

Nevertheless,  we  see  very  plainly,  that  even  in 
applying  this  means,  and  in  drawing  conclusions  from 
the  versions,  very  great  caution  is  required  ;  that  it  is 
necessary  to  have  formed  a  previous  acquamtance  with 
the  spirit  of  each  version  ;  that  we  must  be  thoroughly 
satisfied  on  tliis  most  important  point,  whether  it  were 
made  from  some  other  version  or  from  the  original ; 
and  then,  that  we  also  make  all  possible  allowance  for 
errors  of  the  translator.  It  is  quite  evident,  that  by 
proceeding  in  this  manner,  bringing  out  these  errors 
and  applying  these  cautions,  we  may  promise  ourselves 
the  more  advantage  from  the  use  of  this  help  in  criti- 
cism. 

This  is  undoubtedly  not  the  case  with  the  fourth  and 
last  means,  which  criticism  may  employ.  This  is  to 
be  found  in  the  works  of  the  early  fathers,  and  in  gen- 
eral of  all  the  older  ecclesiastical  writers  who  made 
some  use  of  the  Bible. 

It  is  by  no  means  necessary  in  this  work  to  explain 
m  what  manner,  and  to  what  purpose,  and  under  what 
circumstances,  criticism  can  avail  itself  of  those  works. 


aUOTATIONS  IN  THE  FATHERS.  57 

They  contain  a  multitude  of  literal  quotations  from 
the  scriptures.  When  cases  occur,  in  which  the  cita- 
tions differ  from  the  passages  as  tliey  stand  in  our 
present  text  and  in  some  manuscripts,  a  conjecture 
arises,  that  the  copy  used  by  the  author  may  have  con- 
tained a  different  reading,  and  thus  the  suspicion  of  an 
interpolation  is  produced.  But  certainty  can  never 
result  from  this  source ;  indeed  it  will  scarcely  justify 
conjecture  and  suspicion.  We  are  never  certain 
whether  the  ancient  author  transcribed  the  quoted  pas- 
sage literally  from  his  copy,  or,  as  was  very  possible 
and  in  fact  was  very  often  done,  trusted  merely  to 
his  memory ;  and  consequently  we  are  never  certain 
whether  the  alteration,  from  which  we  might  conjec- 
ture a  various  reading  to  have  existed,  had  taken  place 
in  his  copy  or  in  his  memory. 

Yet  there  are  particular  cases  or  interpolations 
which  by  means  of  this  assistance,  can  be  discovered 
with  sufficient  certainty.  When,  for  instance,  a  place 
is  interpolated  by  the  introduction  of  a  supposititious 
clause,  the  works  of  the  ancient  fathers  will  sometimes 
enable  us  to  infer  with  tolerable  correctness,  not  only 
the  spuriousness  of  the  clause,  but  also  the  time  when 
it  may  have  been  casually  introduced  into  the  text. 
If  the  place  is  quoted  by  many  and  various  writers 
uniformly  without  the  addition,  this  is  a  certain  proof 
that  it  was  added  by  some  later  hand.  The  hist  quota- 
tion, therefore,  in  which  it  occurs,  affords  grounds  for 
conjecturing  when  and  where  the  interpolation  was  first 
casually  made. 

Thus,  for  example,  it  may  be  considered  as  one  of 

the  most  important  collateral  proofs  of  the  spurious- 

5* 


58  QUOTATIONS  IN  THE  FATHERS. 

ness  of  1  John  v.  7,  that  no  Greek  father  even  to  the 
fourth  centuiy  seems  to  have  been  acquainted  with  it, 
as  It  is  cited  by  none  for  a  considerable  time  after  the 
breaking  out  of  the  Arian  controversies  ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  earlier  use  which  was  made  of  it  by 
Latin  fathers  places  it  almost  beyond  doubt,  that  the 
interpolation  was  first  made  in  Latin  copies,  and  from 
these  introduced  into  Greek.* 

From  this  example  it  is  also  exceedingly  evident, 
that  the  conjectures  which  by  these  means  are  afforded 
to  criticism,  it  may  expect  for  the  most  part  to  be  able 
to  strenffthen  on  other  grounds  both  external  and  in- 
ternal ;  for  in  the  text  just  referred  to,  both  the  contents 
of  the  supposititious  passage,  and  the  circumstance 
that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  ancient  Greek  manu- 
script, afford  more  than  one  weighty  reason  to  confirm 
the  conjecture,  that  it  may  have  been  first  introduced 
into  the  Latin  copies.  Hence  then  the  degree  of  util- 
ity which  can  be  afibrdcd  by  this  help  to  criticism, 
may  also  be  determined  with  sufficient  accuracy.  In 
connexion  with  the  others  it  can  supply  criticism  with 
many  very  valuable  results,  but  independently  the  data 
which  it  aftbrds  are  exceedingly  uncertain. 

What  liEis  been  said  may  be  sufficient  to  give  a 
clear  idea  of  what  the  object  and  application  of  sacred 
criticism  particularly  are  ;  for  along  with  the  sketch  of 
tbe  means  which  alone,  from  its  nature  it  can  employ 
in  attaining  its  objects,  must  the  character  of  these 
objects  be  most  perspicuously  exhibited. 

•  Note  IX. 


HISTORY  OF  SACRED  PHILOLOGY.  59 

CHAPTER     VII. 

In  giving  an  account  of  the  literary  helps  which 
may  be  used  in  the  study  of  criticism  and  of  sacred 
philology  in  general,  in  proportion  as  it  might  be  neces- 
sary to  go  into  particulars,  would  it  be  easy  to  antici- 
pate the  great  advantages  that  we  might  expect  to 
derive  from  them.  It  will  be  useful,  however,  first  to 
give  a  brief  general  view  of  the  history  of  this  branch 
of  theological  literature,  in  order  the  better  to  prepare 
the  reader  for  marking,  from  the  succession  of  ages  in 
which  the  principal  works  on  the  subject  have  ap- 
peared, the  particular  periods  of  its  progress,  and  its 
gradually  improved  condition. 

With  tlie  exception  of  the  labors  wliich  Origen, 
in  his  Hexapla  bestowed  on  the  philology  and  criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  those  which  Jerome 
applied  to  the  latter,  in  his  Latin  version  of  the  Bible, 
the  works  of  the  ancient  fathers,  scarcely  furnish  any 
thing,  by  which  the  one  or  the  other  had  been  inten- 
tionally and  directly  advanced  by  them.* 

Except  a  few  individuals,  as  Theodore  of  Mopsu- 
estia,  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Theodoret  and  some 
others,  they  were  not  only  exceedingly  destitute  of  a 
learned  acquaintance  with  language,  particularly  the 
Hebrew;  but,  which  was  still  more  to  be  lamented, 
they  had  no  conception  of  the  necessity  of  accurate 
acquaintance  with  this  subject,  for  the  purposes  of 
correct  interpretation. 

In  the  middle  ages  all  learned  acquaintance  with 
languages  was  entirely  lost.    In  consequence  of  the  total 

*  Note  X. 


60  HISTORY  OF  SACRED  PHILOLOGY. 

ig:norance  which  prevailed  on  this  subject,  a  great 
number  of  the  orrossest  philological  errors,  which  had 
gradually  crept  into  what  was  called  the  Vulgate,  that 
IS,  the  Latin  version  which  was  exclusively  used  in  the 
church,  were  not  observed.  Yet  afterwards,  at  the 
revival  of  learning  in  the  sixteenth  century,  this  very 
state  of  things  afforded  the  immediate  occasion  for 
some  of  its  most  distinguished  restorers  to  apply  their 
industry  to  this  altogether  uncultivated  field,  and  to 
endeavor  to  excite  a  renewed  attention  to  the  study 
of  tlie  orimnal  languages  of  the  Bible. 

This  was  first  done  with  respect  to  the  Hebrew 
by  the  celebrated  John  Reuchlin,  and  by  the  more 
celebrated  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam  with  respect  to  the 
Greek,  and  with  a  zeal  and  success,  which  alone  must 
have  made  their  names  immortal,  if  they  had  per- 
formed no  other  services  in  the  cause  of  literature. 

Erasmus  felt  the  necessity  of  treating  the  text  of 
the  Bible  in  a  critical  manner ;  he  had  even  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  for  this  purpose  different  manu- 
scripts must  be  compared,  and  their  various  readings 
collected ;  he  did  this  himself  in  relation  to  the  New 
Testament  as  far  as  he  could  in  his  time  ;  and  thus  he 
opened  the  way  to  criticism  which  was  soon  afterwards 
pursued  still  farther  by  Beza,  the  two  learned  brothers, 
Robert  and  Henry  Stephens,  and  some  other 
scholars. 

This  last  discovery  was  almost  too  great  for  the  age 
of  Erasmus.  On  account  of  the  zeal  with  which  he 
recommended  to  divines  the  knowledge  and  study  of 
the  original  languages  of  the  Bible,  he  met  with  abund- 
ance of  hostile  treatment.     Neither  he,   nor  the  two 


HISTORY  OF  SACRED  PHILOLOGY.  61 

Stephenses,  nor  even  the  example  of  the  great  promoter 
of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  was  able  to  awaken  a 
feeling  only  somewhat  general  in  favor  of  criticism. 
But  still,  learning  in  languages  flourished  again  in  full 
bloom  from  their  age  ;  although  some  time  was  allowed 
to  elapse  before  sacred  philology  derived  from  it  a  real 
advantage. 

Very  much  on  this  subject  was  effected  by  the  ex- 
ample of  Melancthon  and  Luther,  who  applied  them- 
selves to  it  with  the  most  ardent  zeal,  and  consequently 
became  qualified  to  offer  to  the  German  nation  the 
most  beneficial  of  all  presents,  in  Luther's  translation 
of  the  Bible.  But  more  efficacious  than  the  example 
and  the  exhortations  of  Luther  and  Melancthon,  was 
the  necessity,  wliich  soon  pressed  upon  the  divines 
of  the  newly  established  church,  to  defend  themselves 
against  the  supporters  of  the  old  system,  or  the  desire 
of  being  distinguished  in  all  respects  from  them ; 
so  that  by  their  means  an  acquaintance  with  the 
original  languag'es  was  soon  considered  as  an  indis- 
pensable  requisite  of  a  learned  divine. 

Greek  and  Hebrew  studies  were  now  pursued  with 
great  ardor  by  the  Protestants,  and  were  also  employed 
with  peculiar  zeal  in  making  known  to  the  Roman 
Catholics  numerous  errors  in  their  Vulgate.  But  for 
the  more  accurate  study  of  the  Hebrew  their  helps 
were  too  limited ;  and  with  respect  to  the  Greek,  they 
lost  but  too  soon  the  proper  track  which  had  been  first 
pursued,  and  consequently  missed  entirely  the  right  path, 
which  had  otherwise  been  found  with  so  much  facility. 

Erasmus  and  Melancthon  had  proceeded  with  the 
study  of  the  pure  Greek,  of  the  genuine  ancient  Greek 


OB  HISTORY  OF  SACRED  PHILOLOGY. 

classics,  and  this  they  had  earnestly  recommended  to 
their  contemporaries.  Had  this  course  been  persisted 
in,  it  would  soon  have  been  discovered,  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament  has  peculiarities  which 
must  have  been  introduced  from  another  source  than 
that,  and  also  that  another  was  required  for  its  illustra- 
tion. But  the  whole  direction  which  the  spirit  of  the- 
ology had  taken  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  which  was  introduced  in  the  following,  was  neces- 
sarily unfavorable  in  the  highest  degree  to  this  disco- 
very. Exegetical  theology  was  unhappily  altogether 
subjected  to  the  yoke  of  doctrinal  and  polemic  divinity. 
It  did  not  venture  to  look  any  farther  than  within 
the  bounds  which  these  prescribed  to  it ;  and  there- 
fore even  the  grammar  of  the  languages  of  scripture 
was  studied  with  constant  reference  to  them.  The 
prevailing  system  of  divinity  imposed  laws  on  sacred 
philology  which  it  was  obliged  to  respect,  and  which 
in  fact  were  respected  with  such  obsequious  timidity, 
that  it  allowed  itself  even  to  imagine  the  Greek  style, 
defended  by  the  advocates  of  pure  doctrinal  theology,  to 
be  the  only  ancient  and  genuine  idiom,  and  it  even  de- 
clared it  impious  merely  to  doubt  whether  the  Apos- 
tles had  always  written  in  pure  Greek. 

This  was  attended  with  an  unfortunate  conse- 
quence. It  soon  became  the  prevailing  disposition  to 
learn  Greek  from  their  writings  alone  ;  and  it  was 
said  to  be  learned,  when,  in  determining  the  significa- 
tion of  their  expressions,  nothing  more  was  regarded 
than  the  convenience  which  might  thereby  result,  or 
which  had  long  ago  resulted  to  doctrinal  theology. 
The  unavoidable  consequences  of  such  a  course  are 


HISTORY  OF  SACRED  PHILOLOGY.  63 

shown,  even  in  a  stronger  light  than  was  absolutely 
necessary,  by  the  whole  state  of  theological  literature 
in  the  preceding  century. 

Iq  order  gradually  to  bring  the  subject  into  its  right 
course,  it  was  therefore  very  suitable  and  proper,  that 
in  our  own  age  a  commencement  should  again  be 
made  to  illustrate  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament 
from  the  Greek  of  the  old  profane  writers,  and  to  ob- 
serve the  advantages  which  the  study  of  these  can  af- 
^*  ford  :  for  this  most  immediately  prepared  the  way  for  the 
direction,  which  the  philological  study  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament has  taken  among  us  during  the  last  thirty  years. 

The  new  acquaintance  with  the  genuine  Greek 
idiom  at  last  produced  the  conviction,  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament  is  not  entirely  classical, 
and  therefore,  that  other  sources  besides  the  pure  Greek 
writers  must  be  required  to  explain  it.  More  readily 
still  were  these  sources  found  in  the  Septuagint  transla- 
lion,  in  the  writings  of  Philo,  and  in  the  oriental  lan- 
guages ;  and  as  these  sources  were  made  purer  and 
more  useful,  by  the  industry  of  many  learned  men  who 
successively  applied  their  labors  to  them,  and  at  the 
same  time  also  the  study  of  oriental  literature  was 
carried  incomparably  farther  than  it  had  ever  been 
before,  by  the  application  of  Erpenius,  Schultens, 
Reiske,  Michaelis  and  others,  it  was  very  natural  that 
sacred  philology  should  soon  assume  among  us  a  per- 
fectly new  form. 

With  still  greater  reason  may  sacred  criticism  be 
considered  as  literature  of  our  age  and  altos:ether  new. 
Richard  Simon  indeed,*  the  great  man  who  may  be 

•  Note  XI. 


64*  HISTORY  OF  SACRED  PHILOLOGY. 

allowed  to  occupy  a  most  distinguished  place  among 
those  who  brought  it  to  light,  had  previously  made  his 
appearance.  Capel  also  had  preceded  him.  But  the 
treatment  to  which  these  men  were  subjected,  the  al- 
most universal  cry  of  heresy  with  which  they  were 
received,  and  the  real  persecution  which  rewarded  their 
labors,  too  clearly  prove  the  incompetency  of  their  age 
even  to  judge  of  their  discoveries,  to  say  nothing  of 
making  use  of  them. 

What  they  had  said  of  the  necessity  of  a  critical 
examination  of  the  original  Greek  and  Hebrew 
texts  was  almost  considered  as  blasphemy,  since  in- 
deed this  was  to  question  their  genuineness.  Thus, 
instead  of  applying  themselves  carefully  to  ascertain 
the  means  by  which  criticism  could  be  placed  in  a 
condition  to  discover  and  correct  the  errors  that  had 
crept  into  the  text,  the  object  almost  universally 
aimed  at  was,  to  prove  that  no  correction  was  ne- 
cessary. 

The  lisfht  against  which  men  had  hitherto  closed 
their  eyes  was  first  in  our  age  admitted,  in  succession 
by  Mill.  Wetstein  and  Bengel.  They  investigated  the 
sources,  some  of  which  had  already  been  opened  by 
Simon,  and  by  the  use  which  they  made  of  them  they 
proved,  not  only  that  criticism  was  harmless,  but  that  it 
can  be  made  beneficial  in  proportion  as  it  is  necessary  : 
although  the  pious  Bengel  himself  was  forced  to  listen 
to  many  a  bitter  reproach  or  account  of  the  bold  auda- 
city with  which,  as  it  was  thought,  he  treated  the  Bible.* 
The  labors,  in  our  own  age,  of  Michaelis,  Griesbach, 
Matthsei,  in  the  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  and 

*  Note  XII. 


HELLENISTIC  CONTROVERSY.  65 

of  Hoiibigant,  Kennicott,  De  Rossi,  in  that  of  the  Old, 
are  well  known. 

This  brief  outline  of  the  history  of  tlie  different 
treatment  which  the  several  branches  of  literature  that 
belong  to  sacred  philology  met  with,  will  enable  the 
reader  to  form  some  judgment  respecting  the  different 
value  and  utility  of  the  principal  literary  works  relating 
to  the  subject.  These  I  shall  now  proceed  to  state,  in 
the  order  of  time  in  which  they  appeared,  confining  tlie 
.selection  however  to  the  more  important  and  remark- 
able. It  will  also  be  necessary  to  separate  from  each 
other,  those  which  belong  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  languages,  and  also  those  in  which 
the  labors  of  criticism  in  relation  to  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  contained.  Thus  the  valuable  helps 
in  each  of  these  departments,  afforded  by  the  collec- 
tions of  the  learned,  can  the  more  easily  be  perceived, 
from  the  improved  order  in  which  they  are  arranged. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

With  respect  to  the  philological  knowledge  of  our 
Greek  text,  it  is  proper,  in  the  lii'st  place,  to  give  some 
account  of  the  discussions  and  controversies,  which 
were  carried  on  in  the  last  century  and  ])artly  also  in 
our  own,  respecting  this  important  question  :  Is  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament  pure  Greek  or  Helle- 
nistic— a  pure  Greek  dialect  or  one  corrupted  with 
Hebraisms  and  Chaldaisms  ? 

In  the  sixteenth  century  Erasmus  and  Laurenlins 
Valla  had  not  only  intimated,  but  plainly  enough 
asserted  and  also  proved  the  latter  opinion  by  variour 

6 


66 


HELLENISTIC  CONTROVERSY. 


arguments.  Many  of  the  best  scholars  of  their  time 
had  also  very  willingly  embraced  their  opinion  on  the 
subject,  when  Henry  Stephens,  in  the  preface  to  his 
edition  of  the  New  Testament  printed  in  1576,  under- 
took to  oppose  them,  and  to  prove  that  the  Greek  of  the 
New  Testament  was  pure.  This  first  induced  divines 
to  pay  attention  to  the  different  opinions  held  on  this 
subject ;  yet  it  never  assumed  the  form  of  a  controversy, 
until  the  signal  was  given  by  Sebastian  Pfochen 
in  the  following  work. 

Diatribe  de  linguae  Grsecae  Novi  Testamenti  puri- 
tate,  ubi  quam  plurimis,  qui  vulgo  finguntur.  Ebraismis 
larva  detrahitur,  et  profanes  quoque  ductores  ita  esse 
locutos  ad  oculum  demonstratur,  Amstel.  1629. 

The  warmth,  evident  from  the  very  title,  with 
which  Pfochen  defended  in  this  work  the  pure  Greek 
idiom  of  the  New  Testament,  excited  in  Holland  as 
well  as  in  Germany  many  learned  men  to  espouse  the 
opposite  side  of  the  question.  But  again  this  roused  the 
disposition  of  others  to  maintain  what  they  conceived 
to  be  the  truth,  or  else  confirmed  their  obstinacy,  so 
that  they  defended  with  equal  earnestness  the  positions 
of  Pfochen.  Hence  a  literary  war  arose  which  con- 
tinued even  in  our  own  century. 

In  1639,  Joachim  Jung  pubUshed  in  Germany  his 
SententisB  doctissimorum  quorundam  virorum — de 
Hellenistis  et  Hellenistica  dialecto,  in  which  he  proved 
against  Pfochen,  that  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  Hellenistic.  But  in  the  very  next  year  he 
was  opposed  by  Jacob  Grosse  at  Jena  with  a  Trias 
propositionum  theologorum  stilum  Novi  Testamenti  a 
barbaris    criminationibus     vindicantium,     where    he 


HELLENISTIC  CONTROVERSY.  67 

represented  all  defenders  of  the   Hellenistic  idiom   as 
hateful  heretics. 

In  the  same  year  therefore,  Daniel  Wulfer  wrote 
a  vindication  of  them :  Innocentia  Hellenistarum 
vnidicata.  But  now  Grosse  directed  against  him  his 
Observationes  pro  triade  observationum — apologeticae  ; 
and  as  the  amiable  and  learned  John  Mus^us,  in  a 
Disquisitio  de  Stilo  Novi  Testamenti,  which  he  pub- 
lished in  1641,  did  not  altogether  declare  himself  in 
his  favor,  he  attacked  this  good  man  so  severely  in  a 
Tertia  defensio  triados,  which  came  out  at  Hamburg, 
in  1641,  that  Musaeus  found  himself  compelled  to  pub- 
lish in  1642,  Vindiciae  disquisitionis  de  stilo  Novi  Testa- 
menti, Even  this  did  not  impose  silence  on  Grosse, 
who  sent  into  the  world  a  fourth  defence  of  his  Trias, 
which  was  published  at  Hamburg  in  1642. 

At  this  time  also  the  controversy  was  first  agitated 
in  Holland.  Here  the  celebrated  Daniel  Heinsius  had 
already,  on  several  occasions,  (as  in  his  Aristarchus 
sacer.  and  in  the  preface  to  his  Exercitationes  sacrae  in 
Novum  Testamentum,)  opposed  the  sentiments  of 
Pfochen  respecting  the  purity  of  the  Greek  in  the  New 
Testament ;  but  now  he  did  so  at  large  and  intention- 
ally in  an  express  Exercitatio  de  lingua  Hellenistica, 
which  in  1643  he  published  at  Leyden.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  no  less  celebrated  Salmasius  published,  in 
reply  to  him,  not  less  than  three  controversial  works 
that  same  year,  the  contents  and  character  of  which 
are  easily  recognized  from  their  titles.  That  of  the  first 
is:  Salmasii  Hellenistica — sive  commentarius  con- 
troversiam  de  lingua  Hellenistica  decidens ;  of  the 
second  :  Funus  linguae  Hellenisticae,   sive   Confutatio 


W  HELLENISTIC  CONTROVERSY. 

exercitationis  de  lingua  Hellenistica  :  and  of  the  third : 
Ossilegium  hngiise  Hellenisticae,  sive  Appendix  ad 
confutationem,  (fee. 

In  a  short  time  many  scholars  of  other  countries 
took  part  in  the  controversy.  Thomas  Gataker  of 
England,  in  a  Dissertatio  de  stilo  Novi  Instrumenti. 
Lond.  1648,  defended  witli  much  warmth  the  party 
and  opinion  of  the  Hellenists.  In  Switzerland  this  was 
done  principally  by  Samuel  Werenfels,  in  a  treatise 
de  stilo  scriptorum  Novi  Testamenti,  and  among  our 
own  divines  by  John  Olearius  in  a  work  de  stilo 
Novi  Testamenti,  and  by  Henry  Boeckler  in  a 
treatise  :  de  lingua  Novi  Testamenti  originali.  But 
even  in  Holland,  after  the  first  combatants  had  left  the 
arena,  the  controversy  was  carried  on  by  John  Vors- 
Tins  as  its  principal  conductor,  in  his  Philologia  sacra 
— de  Hebraismis  Novi  Testamenti,  Leyden,  1658,  to 
which  in  1665  he  published  a  second  part,  under  the 
title :  Commentarius  de  Hebraismis  Novi  Testamenti,* 
after  Horace  Vitringa  had  attacked  the  first  in  a 
publication  entitled :  Specimen  annotationum  ad  philo- 
logiam  sacram  Vorstii. 

In  order  to  give  posterity  a  correct  view  of  the 
proceedings  of  this  memorable  controversy,  two  learned 
men,  in  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  made 
with  great  care  a  collection  of  the  most  important 
works  already  cited,  and  of  others  also  which  had 
appeared  on  the  subject :  namely,  Jacob  Rheinferd. 
in  his  Syntagma  dissertationum  philologico  theologi- 
carum  de  stilo  Novi  Testamenti,  Loewarden,  1703,  and 

*  The  best  edition  of  this  work  is  that  of  Fischer,  published  at 
Leipzig,  in  8vo,  1778.     Tr. 


HELLENISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  69 

Van  uer  Honert,  in  another  work,  which  under  the 
same  title  he  pubhshed  in  the  same  year  at  Amsterdam. 
Some  other  learned  men,  as  John  Henry  Michaelis, 
and  Blackwall  of  England,  the  latter  in  his  Sacred 
classics  defended  and  illustrated,  Lond.  1727,  and  the 
former  in  a  treatise  de  textu  Novi  Testament!  Graeco, 
Halas,  1707,  endeavored  to  f)roduce  an  accommodation » 
by  proposing  to  the  contending  parties,  that  the  one 
should  acknowledge  the  Hebraisms  by  which  the  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament  was  designated,  and  the  other, 
notwithstanding  its  Hebraisms,  should  allow  the  style 
of  it  to  be  considered  as  pure.  And  in  this  way  they 
would  gradually  have  approached  each  other,  had  not 
Christian  SicxIsmond  Georgi  at  Wittemberg  given 
new  life  to  the  controversy. 

This  zealot  for  the  purity  of  the  style  of  scripture 
published  in  1732,  Vindiciae  Novi  Testament!  ab  Ebra- 
ismis  in  three  books,  against  which  some  Leipzig 
scholars,  as  Drs.  Knapp  and  Dressing,  maintained 
the  opinion  of  the  Hellenists.  Immediately '  in  1733 
a  new  work  of  Georgi  made  its  appearance  under  the 
title  :  Hierocriticus  sacer — sive  de  stilo  Novi  Testa- 
men  ti.  This  also  was  in  three  books,  and  in  the  end 
of  the  year  a  second  part,  comprehending  as  many 
more,  came  out.  They  were  answered  again  by  the 
Leipzig  critics.  After  this  no  one  took  up  the  contro- 
versy. The  Hellenists  maintained  the  superiority ; 
and  as  the  further  cultivation  which  the  philology  of 
the  New  Testament  received,  proceeded  in  general 
upon  the  supposition  which  they  had  contended  for, 
their  opinion  made  far  greater  progress  in  a  short  time 
than  it  had  previously  made  for  ages. 


70  SOURCES  TO  ILLUSTRATE  THE 

Attention  was  now  paid  to  the  chief  source  from 
which  the  lano^uag-e  of  the  New  Testament  could 
receive  the  greatest  degree  of  illustration,  the  Septua- 
gint  version.  As  early  as  the  year  1715,  John  Henry 
Michael  IS  had  published  a  treatise  de  usu  Septua- 
ginta  interpretum  in  Novo  Testamento,  containing  for 
its  age  a  number  of  most  valuable  hints.  Soon  after- 
wards, many  of  the  learned  began  to  make  this  version 
more  serviceable,  by  publishing  critical  and  improved 
editions  of  it.  In  1707 — 1720,  John  Ernest  Grabe 
printed  at  Oxford  an  edition  corrected  according  to  the 
most  ancient  manuscripts,  and  this  was  again  published 
at  Zurich  in  1730 — 1732  in  four  volumes  4to,  by 
John  Jacob  Breitinger.  This  is  justly  preferred 
to  all  others ;  only,  with  the  translation  which  it 
contains  of  the  prophet  Daniel,  which  is  not  the 
version  of  the  Septuagint  but  of  Theodotion,  it  is 
necessary  to  compare  that  which  was  first  made 
public  at  Rome  in  1772,  folio,  under  the  title: 
Daniel,  secundum  Septuaginta,  and  in  1773  was 
reprinted  at  Goettingen  according  to  the  Roman 
edition. 

From  this  period  even  to  our  own  times,  many 
learned  nien  applied  themselves,  with  the  more  earnest- 
ness, to  facilitate  the  use  of  this  translation,  and  to 
make  it  more  general  and  extensive,  by  means  of 
historical,  literary  and  philological  explanations;  al- 
though in  fact  this  had  been  done,  not  without  success, 
by  some  older  writers  of  the  preceding  century. 
Among  the  earlier  and  among  the  more  modern  works 
of  this  kind,  the  following  may  perhaps  be  pointed  out 
as  of  most  utility. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  /I 

Jac.  Usserii  Syntagma  de  Graeca  Septuaginta  in- 
terpretiim  versione.  Lips.  1695. 

Isaac.  Vossii  Dissertationesde  LXX  interpretibus, 
eorumque  translatione  et  chronologia.  Hag.  Com.  1661. 

Ant.  Van  Dale,  Commentatio  super  Aristeam 
de  LXX  interpretibus.  Amstelod.  1705. 

Jo.  Ernest  Grabe,  Dissertatio  de  vitiis  versioni 
LXX  ante  Originis  aevum  illatis.  Oxon.  1710. 

J.  M.  Hassencamp,  Dissertatio  de  Pentateucho 
LXX  interpretum  Graeco  non  ex  Ebraeo  sed  ex  Sama- 
ritano  textu  converso.  Marpurg.  1765. 

John  David  Michaelis,  Program  of  his  course 
of  college  lectures  on  the  seventy  interpreters.  Goetting. 
1767. 

Claud.  Hornemann,  Specimen  exercitationum  cri- 
ticarum  in  versionem  LXX  ex  Philone.  HafiiiaB, 
1776. 

But  the  actual  application  of  this  version  in  the 
philology  of  the  New  Testament  was  principally  faci- 
htated  by  means  of  two  works,  about  half  a  century 
removed  from  each  other,  both  of  which  are  very  ex- 
cellent of  their  kind,  and  foT  the  learned  interpreter  al- 
together indispensable.  The  older  of  the  two  is :  Abra- 
ham Tromii  Concordantiae  Grseca3  versionis  LXX 
intei-pretum,  Amstel.  1718,  folio  ;  and  the  more  mo- 
dem :  Jo.  Christ.  Biel  Novus  thesaurus  philologicus, 
sive  lexicon  in  LXX  et  alios  interpretes  et  scriptores 
apocryphos  Veteris  Testamcnti.  Ex  auctoris  manu- 
cripto  edidit  et  prsefatus  est  E.  H.  Mutzenbecher. 
Vol.  iii.  Hag.  Com.  1779—1781,  8vo.  To  this  last 
work  Dr.  J.  F.  Schleusner  has  made  very  valuable 
additions,  in  two  collections  which  he  has  published 


72  SOURCES  TO  ILLUSTRATE  THE 

With  the  title :  Spicilegia  lexici  in  Septuaginta  post 
BieUiim.  Lips.  1784,  1786.* 

In  addition  to  these  principal  sources  of  assistance 
ni  acquiring  an  easier  and  more  correct  acquaintance 
with  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  there  are 
also  other  works,  which  contain  collections  of  what  is 
useful  for  this  purpose,  derived  from  the  sources  already 
mentioned,  on  the  one  side  from  pure  Greek,  and  on 
the  other  from  oriental. 

As  the  characteristic  of  this  language  consists  in  its 
intermixture  with  Hebraisms,  Chaldaisms,  and  such 
modes  of  speech  as  the  Jews  had  long  been  in  the  habit 
of  using  to  express  certain  religious  ideas,  very  much 
depends  of  course  upon  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  these, 
for  which  purpose  the  most  ample  collections  are  to  be 
found  in  the  following  works. 

JoHAN.  LiGHTFOoT,  HorsB  HebraicgB  et  Chaldaicae 
in  quatuor  Evangelistas,  Acta  Apostol. — separat.  ed.  a 
Bened.  Carpzov.  Lips.  1684.t 

Christ.  Schoettgenii  Horae  Hebraicae  et  Tal- 
mudicae  in  universum  Novum  Testamentum.  Vol.  ii. 
Dresd.  1733,  1744.  4to. 

Gerh.  Meuschenii  Novum  Testamentum  ex  Tal- 
mude  et  Antiquitatibus  Hebraicis  illustratum.  Lips. 
1736. 

John  Gill's  Exposition  of  the  New  Testament, 
with  notes  taken  from  the  most  ancient  Jewish  wri- 
tings. Lond.  1746 — 1748.  Vol.  iii.  folio. 

*  Note  XIII. 
t  All  the  works  of  Lightfoot,  comprehending  of  course  his  Ho- 
riE,  were  published  in  English  in  two  large  folio  volumes,  in  London 
in  1684.    A  new  edition  in  several  volumes  8vo,  has  recently  ap- 
peared.   Tr. 


I 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.  73 

JoHAN.  Bened.  Carpzovii  Exercitationes  sacrae 
in  epistolam  Pauli  ad  Hebraeos  ex  Philone  Alexan- 
drino  Helmstad.  1750. 

JoHAN.  ToB.  Krebs,  Observationcs  in  Novum 
Testamentum  ex  Flavio  Josepho.  Lips.  1755. 

Those  illustrations  which  are  drawn  from  pure 
Greek  writers  to  illustrate  the  dialect  of  the  New 
Testament,  are  brought  together  principally  in  the  fol- 
io wma:  works. 

Georg.  Raphelii  Annotationes  in  Novum  Testa- 
mentum ex  Xenophonte  coUectae.  Hamb.  1720,  ed. 
secund. — By  the  same  author  :  Annotationes  in  Novum 
Testamentum  ex  Polybio  et  Arriano  coUectee,  ib. 
1715 ; — and  Annotationes  philologicas  in  Novum 
Testamentum  ex  Herodoto  collecta3.  Luenenburg, 
1731. 

JoHAN.  Henr.  Von  Seelen,  Specimen  observa- 
tionum  ad  loca  Novi  Testamenti — ex  Pliitarchi  libro 
de  institutione  puerorum.  Lubec.  1719. 

Lamb.  Bos,  DiatribaB,  sive  exercitationes  philolo- 
giccB,  in  quibus  Novi  Testamenti  loca  qua?dam  ex 
profanis  auctoribus  illustrantur.  Franecker,  1700. 

Ge.  Guil.  Kirchmeyer,  Dissertatio  de  parallelis- 
mo  Polybii  et  Novi  Testamenti  ratione  dictionis.  Wit- 
teberg.     1725. 

JoHAN.  Alberti,  Observationes  philologicas  in  No- 
vum Testamentum.  Lugd.  Batav.  1725. 

Jac.  Elsneri,  Observationes  sacraB  in  Novi  Testa- 
menti libros,  quibus  plurima  illorum  loca  ex  auctoribus 
Graecis  et  antiquitate  exponuntur  et  illustrantur.  Tra- 
jecti,  1728. 

Car.  Henr.  Langii  Observationes  philologicse  in 


,74  SOURCES  TO  ILLUSTRATE  THE 

Novum  Testa meutum  ex  Luciano  potissimum  et  Dio- 
nysio  Halicarn.  Lubec.  1732; — also,  by  the  same 
author :  Observationes  in  Novum  Testamentum  ex 
Euripide.  lb.  1734. 

Ge.  Dav.  Kypke,  Observationes  sacrae  in  hbros 
Novi  Testamenti,  ex  auctoribus  potissimum  Graecis  et 
antiquitate.     Wratisl.     1 7.52. 

Eli  AS  Palairet,  Observationes  philologico-criticaR 
m  sacros  Novi  Testamenti  Ubros,  quorum  phirima  loca 
ex  auctoribus  Graecis  illustrantur,  vindicantur  et  expo- 
nuntur.    Lugd.    Batav.  1752. 

Casp.  Frid.  Munthe,  Observationes  philologicae 
in  sacros  Novi  Testamenti  Ubros  ex  Diodoro  Siculo 
collectae.   Havniae,  1755. 

Frid.  Lud.  Abresch,  Dilucidationes  Thucydideae, 
in  quibus  passim  Novi  Testamenti  loca  illustrantur. 
Trajecti,     1755.* 

But  all  illustrations  of  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  collected  together  from  all  the  sources,  may 
be  found  in  the  greatest  completeness  in  the  most  recent 
work  of  this  kind :  J.  F.  Schleusneri  Lexicon  Graeco- 
Latinum  in  Novum  Testamentum.  Tom.  li.  Lips. 
1792.  Svo.t 


chapter      IX. 

The  helps  to  facilitate  an  acquaintance  with  the 
original  language  of  the  Old  Testament,  may  very 
properly  be  comprised  in  three  classes. 

First,  sources  from  which  the  original  knowledge 
of  the  language  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  must  be  drawn, 

•  Note  XIV.  t  Note  XV. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW    TESTAMENT.  75 

including  also  such  works  as  contain  directions  for  the 
use  of  those  sources. 

Secondly,  writings  wherein  the  knowledge  drawn 
from  those  sources  is  collected  together  and  arranged, 
as  Grammars,  Lexicons,  Concordances,  and  Collections 
of  idioms  of  the  language. 

Thirdly,  we  may  add,  those  particular  works,  which 
illustrate  by  philological  observations  the  language  of 
separate  books  or  single  passages  of  the  Old  Testament. 

I.  With  respect  to  the  first  class  of  these  works,  it  has 
already  been  shown,  that  the  versions  which  we  possess 
of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  Greek  and  oriental  lan- 
guages, are  the  principal  sources,  and  almost  the  only 
sources,  for  understanding  the  Hebrew,  which  as  a 
living  language  exists  only  in  these  writings.  It  is 
necessary  therefore,  in  the  first  place,  to  take  some 
literary  notice  of  these  versions. 

Here  again  tlie  preference  must  be  given  to  tlie 
Greek,  from  which  undoubtedly  the  greatest  degree 
of  light  may  be  obtained,  as  is  completely  proved 
by  John  Frederic  Fischer,  in  a  treatise  de  versioni- 
bus  Graecis  librorum  Veteris  Testamenti  literarum 
Hebraicarum  magistros.  Lips.  1772.  The  superiority 
of  the  Greek  versions  in  this  respect  arises  from  their 
number :  for  in  addition  to  the  Septuagint,  there  existed 
in  the  time  of  Origen,  three  by  authors  well  known, 
those  namely  of  Theodotion,  Aquila  and  Symmachus ; 
and  also,  three  others  by  unknown  translators.  There 
were  consequently  not  less  than  seven  collated  by  him 
in  his  Tetrapla  and  Hexapla.  It  is  true  that  none  of 
these  versions,  if  we  except  the  Septuagint,  is  preserved 
complete  ;  indeed  even  the  Hexapla  of  Origen  has  come 


f9  SOURCES  TO  ILLUSTRATE  THE 

down  to  us  in  a  most  lamentably  imperfect  state  :  still, 
some  fragments  of  it  remain,  which  can  always  be 
used,  and  which  have  been  used,  with  much  advantage. 
These  were  collected  as  early  as  the  last  century  by 
John  Drusius,  in  his  Fragmenta  veterum  interpretum 
Graecorum  in  totum  vetus  Testaraentum.  Arnhein. 
1622.  But  the  most  meritorious  service  in  this  depart- 
ment has  been  performed  by  Bernard  Montfaucon. 
who  prepared  with  great  care,  and  in  1714,  published 
at  Paris  a  new  edition  of  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  in 
two  folios,  which,  abridged  in  certain  places,  and  provi- 
ded with  some  additional  matter,  was  afterwards,  m 
tlie  years  1768 — 9,  printed  at  Leipsig,  in  two  octavo 
volumes,  by  Dr.  C.  F.  Bahrdt.* 

The  character  of  some  of  these  versions,  of  which 
fragments  still  remain,  has  first  been  in  our  own  time  a 
subject  for  critical  disquisitions,  by  means  of  which 
their  utility  is  not  only  more  accurately  and  correctly 
estimated,  but  their  application  also  greatly  facilitated. 

The  latter  is  done  in  the  work  of  John  Fred. 
Fischer,  entitled :  Clavis  reliquarum  versionum  Grae- 
carum  veteris  Testamenti.  Lips.  1758,  and  in  John 
Aug.  Scharfenberg's  Animadversiones,  quibus  frag- 
menta versionum  Graecarum  Veteris  Testamenti  illus- 
trantur.     Specim.   I.  Lips.    1776. 

On  the  former  the  following  writings,  aUhough  in 
part  somewhat  small,  contain  many  very  valuable  and 
very  necessary  observations. 

JoH.  Sal.  Semleri  epistola  ad  Job.  Jac.  Griesba- 
chium  de  emendandis  Grsecis  Veteris  Testamenti  inter- 
pretibus.     Halse.    1770. 

*  Note  XVI. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  // 

JoH.  Aug.  Dathe,  Dissertatio  in  Aquilae  reliquias 
mterpretationis  Hoseae.    Lips.     1757. 

Car.  Aug.  Thieme — pro  puritate  Symmachi.  Lips. 
1755. 

John  Matt.  Hassencamp'.s  true  origin  of  the  ver- 
sions of  the  Bible  disclosed,  Minden,  1755,  compared 
with  Olav  Gerh.  Tychsen's  Tentamen  de  variis 
(*'odd.  Hebraeorum  Vet.  Test.  MSS.  ijeneribns  a  Judceis 
et  iion-Judasis  descriptis.  Rostoch.  1772.  But  in  oppo- 
sition to  this  work  several  publications  appeared,  whicli 
were  answered  by  Tychsen  in  his  Tentamen  vindi- 
cated, and  in  his  appendix  to  this  work,  both  published 
at  Rostock,  the  former  in  1774,  and  tlie  latter  in  1776.* 

Among  the  other  versions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
the  principal  are  the  Chaldee  or  the  Targ-ums.  the 
Samaritan,  the  Syriac  and  Arabic.  The  fragments  of 
the  Ethiopic  which  are  extant  are  not  of  so  much 
utility,  and  the  more  modern  Armenian  of  still  less. 

Of  the  Targums  or  Chaldee  paraphra.ses  there  are 
several  on  particular  books,  for  instance,  one  on  the 
Pentateuch  by  Onkelos,  another  by  the  pseudo  Jo- 
nathan, and  one  called  the  Jerusalem.  There  is  also 
a  TargLUii  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  on  what  are 
called  the  former  and  later  prophets,  and  another  on 
the  Haeioo^rapha  and  the  five  Megilloth. 

The  Samaritan  version  is  limited,  as  is  well  known, 
to  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  usually  printed  entire  in 
what  are  called  Polyglots,  of  which  there  are  four  that 
particularly  deserve  the  name.  The  first  rank  anions: 
them  as  to  age  is  claimed  by  the  Complutensian  Poly- 
glot, which  was  printed  at  Alcala,  or  Complutum,  in 

•  Note  XVII. 


78  SOURCES  TO  ILLUSTRATE  THE 

1514 — 1517,  in  six  folios,  under  the  auspices  of  caraiua! 
XiMENEs.  The  second  is  the  Antwerp,  which  ap- 
peared in  1569 — 1571,  in  eight  fohos,  and  is  often  refer- 
red to  under  the  title  :  Biblia  regia  Philippi  II.  The 
Paris  Polyglot  is  the  third,  in  ten  folios,  printed  in  1645 
at  the  expense  of  Michel  Le  Jay;  and  the  fourth, 
which  as  it  respects  real  value  merits  the  first  place, 
is  the  London,  edited  by  Brian  Walton  in  six  vo- 
lumes foho,  in  1657.  The  most  complete  accounts  of 
these  Polyglots  may  be  found  in  Le  Long's  Discours 
historique  sur  les  principaux  editions  de  Polygloites. 
Paris,  1713.* 

Some  of  the  above  mentioned  versions  have  also 
been  printed  separately,  as  for  example  the  Arabic  of 
the  whole  Bible  at  Rome  in  1671,  in  three  folios,  al- 
tered by  the  editors  according  to  the  Vulgate.  Also 
some  fragments  which  we  have  of  an  Ethiopic  version, 
the  Psalter  namely  and  the  book  of  Ruth,  were  pub- 
hshed  at  Frankfort  in  1700  by  Job  Ludolf  and  Nis- 
sel.  Still  it  may  easily  be  supposed,  that  very  labori- 
ous investigations,  partly  historical  and  partly  philolo- 
gical and  critical,  were  necessary,  before  these  versions 
could  be  made  useful  in  illustrating  the  Hebrew  text. 
We  must  therefore,  by  all  means,  make  ourselves  ac- 
quainted with  the  results  of  those  investigations. 

These  are  to  be  found  most  fully  in  Richard 
Simon's  Histoire  critique  des  versions  ;  in  the  Appara- 
tus Biblicus  of  Brian  Walton,  Zurich,  1670,  or,  as 
it  is  entitled  in  the  latest  edition  published  by  Dathe 
at  Leipzig,  1777,  the  Prolegomena  in  Biblia  Polyglotta  ; 
in  Kennicott'3  two  dissertations  on  the  state  of  the 
•  Note  XVIII. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      79 

printed  Hebrew  text,  Oxford,  1753,  1759  ;  in  Houbi- 
o  A  NT's  Prolegomena  to  his  Hebrew  Bible,  the  whole 
work  published  at  Paris  in  four  volumes  folio  1773, 
and  the  Prolegomena  alone  at  Frankfort  in  1777;  and  in 
De  Rossi's  Apparatus  Hebrseo-Biblicus,  Parma,  1782. 

On  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  particular,  which 
gave  rise  to  the  most  laborious  and  also  the  most  con- 
tested discussions,  the  greatest  mass  of  information 
may  be  found  in  Morini  Exercitationes  in  utrurnque 
Samaritanum  Pentateuchum,  Paris.  1631,  in  opposi- 
tion to  which  Henry  Hottinger  published  his  Exer- 
citationes antimorinianse  de  Samaritano  Pentateucho, 
Tigur.  1644.  whereupon  Morin  gave  to  the  world  his 
Opuscula  Hebraeo-Samaritana,  Paris.  1657.  Later 
discussions  on  the  controverted  questions  connected 
with  these  works  are  contained  principally  in  Frid. 
Imman.  Schwartz  Exercitationes  historico-criticae 
in  utrurnque  Samaritanum  Pentateuchum,  Witteb. 
1756.  and  in  Nouveaux  eclaircissemens  sur  Torigfine 
et  le  Pentateuque  des  Samaritains,  par  un  religieux  de 
la  congregation  de  S.  Maur,  (P.  Poncet,)  Paris",  1760, 
and  also  in  the  controversial  works  before  mentioned 
of  Tychsen  and  Hassencamp. 

Lastly,  respecting  the  way  and  manner  uf  deriving 
from  these  sources  an  acquaintance  with  the  language 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  also  respecting  the  use  and 
application  of  the  means  which  are  most  serviceable  for 
this  purpose,  the  best  directions  may  be  found  in 
Albert  Schultens'  Origines  Hebraese,  edit.  sec. 
Lugd.  1761,  and  in  John  David  Michaelis'  Beur- 
theilung  der  Mittel,  welche  man  anwenden  kann,  die 
ausg  estorbene  Hebraeische  Sprache  zu  erlernen  und 


' 


80  SOURCES  TO  ILLUSTRATE  THE 

zu  versteheii;  view  of  the  means  to  be  used,  in  order 
to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  dead  Hebrew  language, 
Goettingen,  1757. 

II.  Of  the  second  class  of  literary  helps  for  acqui- 
ring a  knowledge  of  the  language  of  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
among  which  may  be  placed  lexicons  and  concord- 
ances, works  on  grammar,  and  such  as  contain  and 
illustrate  the  idioms  of  the  language,  only  the  principal 
and  most  distinguished  need  be  mentioned.  These 
are  as  follows. 

Castelli  Lexicon  Hebraicum  cum  annot.  J.  D. 
MicHAELis.  Gotting.  1790,  4to. 

J.  D.  MicHAELisSupplementumadLexica  Hebra- 
ica.  P.  1 — vi.  Gotting.  1792. 

JoH.  Simon  IS  Lexicon  manuale  Hebraicum  et 
Chaldaicum.  Halae,  1756.  Also  the  author's  Observa- 
tiones  liCxic.  in  Supplementum  Lexici  manualis,  Halae 
1762,  edit.  tert.  auct.  Joh.  Godfr.  Eichhorn, 
1793. 

Joh.  Cocceii  Lexicon  Hebraic,  et  Chaldaic.  auct. 
ed.  a  J.  C.  F.  Schultz.  T.  ii.  Lips.  1777. 

Joh.  Buxtorfii  Concordantiae  Bib.  Heb.  Basil. 
1632.* 

Among  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  grammars  that 
have  been  published,  the  following  comprise  those  in 
most  oreneral  use.  and  also  such  as  are  most  useful. 

Joh.  Buxtorfii  Thesaurus  linguae  Hebraicae. 
Edit,  quint.  Basil.  1651. 

Joh.  Adr.  Danzii  Literator  Hebraeo-Chaldaeus. 
Jenae,  1745. 

•   Note  XIX. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  81 

John  Henry  Michaelis'  erleichterte  Hebraeis- 
che  Grammatik,  Hebrew  srrammar  made  easy,  Halle, 
1745. 

ScHULTENs'  Institiitiones  ad  fiindamenta  linguae 
Hebraeae.  Liidif.  Bat.  1745. 

Institutiones  ad  fiindamenta  linguae  Hebraeae  edit. 
Nic.  GuiL.  ScHROEDER.  Groening.  1766.  and  Frannof. 
177S. 

J.  D.  MiCHAELis  HebraeischeG  rammatik  nebst 
einem  Anhang  von  gruendlicher  Erkenntniss  dersel- 
ben.  Hebrew  grammar  with  an  appendix  on  a  funda- 
mental acquaintance  with  it.  Third  edition,  Halle. 
177S. 

"William  Fred.  Hezel's  aiisfiiehrliclie  Hebrae- 
i-sche  Sprachlehre.  Complete  Hebrew  grammar,  Halle, 
1777. 

To  these  must  be  added,  on  account  of  the  Chaldee, 
which  is  to  be  considered  as  one  of  the  languages  of 
the  Bible,  and  not  merely  as  a  kindred  dialect  intended 
to  aid  in  acquiring  the  Hebrew  : 

Jac.  Altingii  Synopsis  institutioniim  Chaldaic. 
cum  adnot.     Joh.  Simonis.  Halae,  1749. 

JoH.  Frid.  Hirtii  Bibliorum  analyticorum  pars 
Chaldaica,  praemissa  introductione  ad  Chaldaismum 
biblicum.  Jenae,  1757. 

J.  D.  Michaelis  Grammatica  Chaldaica.  Goettin- 
o^en,  1771. 

Some  idioms  and  peculiarities  of  the  biblical 
Hebrew  are  collected  and  explained  in  the  following 
works : 

Jon.  Jac.  Breitinger.  brevis  de  idiotismis  lin- 
guae HebraiccTB  commentarius.  Tigur.  1737. 

7* 


82  SOURCES  TO  ILLUSTRATE  THE 

Christoph.  Theodos.  Walter,  Ellipses  He- 
braeae.  Dresd.  et  Lips.  1740  ;  another  edition  with  notes 
by  JoH.  Frid.  Chr.  Schultz.  Halle,  1782. 

JoH.  MicHAELis,  Lexicon  particularum  Hebraica- 
rnm.  Francof.  1689. 

Christ.  Noldii  Concordantia  particularum  He- 
brsBO-Chaldaicarum.  Jenee,  1734. 

JoH.  Christ.  Storr,  Observationes  ad  ana- 
logiam  et  Syntaxin  Hebrseam  pertinentes.  Tubing. 
1779.* 

III.  It  now  remains  only  to  mention  some  writings 
of  the  third  class,  in  which  the  language  of  particular 
books  or  of  particular  places  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  in  some  measure  illustrated  by  philological 
remarks. 

We  have  some  philological  commentaries  on  the 
book  of  Job,  and  on  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  by  the 
great  Albert  Schultens. 

By  N.  W.  Schroeder  we  have  a  commentary  of 
the  same  kind  on  the  tenth  Psalm,  published  at  Groe- 
ningen  in  1754,  and  in  the  Sylloge  dissertationum 
philologico-exegeticarum  of  both  these  scholars.  Ley- 
den,  1772,  as  also  in  a  later  collection  by  Schnurrer, 
there  are  philological  illustrations  of  several  separate 
portions  of  the  Hebrew  text. 

In  this  division  those  works  may  be  introduced  in 
which  the  Hebrew  names  occurring  in  the  Bible  are 
philologically  explained,  as  : 

Matt.  Hilleri  Onomasticon  sacrum.  Tubingae, 
1706. 

•  Note  XX. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  83 

Christ.  Bened.  Michaelis  Observationes  philo- 
gicae  denominibus  propriis  Hebraeorum.  Halae,  1729. 

Jo.  Simonis  Onomasticon  Vet.  Test.  Halae.  1741  ; 
also,  the  same  author's  arcanum  formarum  nominum 
linofuae  Hebraeae,  Halae,  1753. 

But  especially  worthy  of  notice  are  those  works 
in  which  the  poetical  lansruage  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  characteristics  of  the  Hebrew  poetry,  are 
.seized  on  and  developed,  although  only  two  modern 
publications  in  this  department  can  be  introduced. 
These  however  make  all  the  older  works  more  than 
unnecessary.  1  refer  to :  Robert  Lowth  de  sacra 
poesi  Heb'raBorum  praelectiones  academicae,  Oxon. 
1753,  and  afterwards  published  at  Goettingen  1758  and 
1761,  with  the  notes  of  John  David  Michaelis  ;* 
and  J.  G.  Herder  vom  Geist  der  Hebraeischen 
Poe.sie,  on  the  spirit  of  Hebrew  poetry,  Dessau,  1782. 


CHAPTER     X. 

After  what  has  been  said,  nothing'  more  is  neces- 
sary than  to  give  an  account  of  the  literary  helps  to 
biblical  criticism ;  and  these  may  be  almost  entirely 
limited  to  some  great  productions  of  modern  times. 
Li  doing  this,  it  will  be  proper  to  distmguish  those 
works  which  belong  to  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment from  those  in  which  the  criticism  of  the  New.  or 
the  helps  and  sources  of  it,  are  the  object  of  the 
authors'  labors. 

•  Note  XXI. 


S4 


LITERARY  HELPS  TO 


The  controversy  which  arose  in  the  last  century, 
respecting  the  necessity  of  a  critical  treatment  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  manner  of  conducting  it,  was 
noticed  in  a  former  chapter,  because  it  originated  in 
erroneous  views  of  inspiration,  and  also  of  a  pre- 
tended incorruptibility  of  the  text,  derived  from  those 
views  or  connected  with  them.  The  principal  works 
therefore  of  Capel,  Buxtorf,  Richard  Simon, 
Carpzov  and  others,  who  were  chiefly  conspicuous  in 
the  controversy,  were  there  mentioned.  These  wtI- 
tings  of  Capel  and  Simon,  and  particularly  of  the 
latter,  contain  not  only  the  reasons  which  make  a  cri- 
tical treatment  of  the  Hebrew  text  necessary,  but  also 
such  an  admirable  development  of  the  means  which 
can  and  must  be  employed  for  that  purpose,  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  should  be  used,  the  caution  to  be 
applied  and  the  method  to  be  pursued,  that  the  princi- 
pal work  of  this  learned  man,  his  critical  history  of 
the  text  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  will  always 
retain  its  rank  among  the  works  most  important  for 
the  study  of  criticism. 

In  addition  to  these  publications  there  are  others 
which  deserve  notice,  such  as  :  Louis  De  Dieu,  Cri- 
tica  sacra.  Amstel.  1693  ;  Humfrey  Hody,  de  Biblio- 
rum  textibus  originalibus,  Oxon.  1705.  There  are 
also  certain  learned  works  still  older,  which,  on  the 
various  readings  of  what  are  called  the  Keri  and  Ce- 
thib,  and  on  the  old  Jewish  criticism  of  the  text  or 
Masora,  contain  some  strange  explanations,  and  sanc- 
tion very  uncritical  opinions.     To  this  class  belongs  : 

Matt.  Hilleri  Arcanum  Keri  et  Cethib,  Tubing. 
1692,  in  which  he  maintains  the  opinion,  that  the  Keri 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  85 

and  Cethib  are  to  be  ascribed  to  Ezra,  who  thus  desig- 
nated on  the  margin  of  his  copy  the  various  readings 
which  he  discovered  in  some  manuscripts. 

Also  :  JoH.  Reinhardi  Commentar.  de  notis 
marginalibus  sacri  codicis  Masorethicis,  Witteb.  1674 ; 
Aug.  Pfeiffer  de  Masorah,  ejus  nomine,  materia, 
forma,  auctoribus,  auctoritate  et  usu,  Witteb.  1670  ; 
and  JoH.  Frid.  Cotta,  Exercitatio  historico-critica 
de  origine  Masorae,  Tub.  1726. 

On  the  method  by  which  many  additional  various 
readings  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  may  be  collected,  very 
useful  hints  were  given  by  Jablonsky,  in  the  preface 
to  his  Hebrew  Bible,  printed  at  Berlin,  1699.  But  Le 
Long  pointed  out  a  far  greater  number  of  sources  for 
this  purpose  in  his  Bibliotheca  sacra,  the  best  edition 
of  which,  printed  at  Paris  in  1723  in  two  folios,  was 
republished,  enriched  with  very  large  additions,  by 
Andrew  Gottlieb  Ma.sch,  at  Halle  in  1778--1785, 
in  five  volumes,  quarto.*  Yet  on  these  sources  and  the 
use  of  them  generally,  very  much  may  be  learned  from 
the  above  mentioned  Apparatus  Biblicus  or  Prolego- 
mena of  Brian  Walton,  and  still  more  in  the  two 
dissertations  of  Kennicott  on  the  state  of  the  Hebrew 
text,  a  translation  of  which  from  the  English  into 
Latin  was  published  at  Leipzig  in  1756  and  1765 
by  Teller,  counsellor  of  the  superior  consis- 
tory. 

The  following  later  works  also,  although  in  part 
but  small,  contain  very  valuable  additional  matter  for 
this  purpose,  and  for    Hebrew   criticism   in   general. 

•  Note  XXII. 


86  LITERARY   HELPS  TO 

Erh.  Andr.  Frommanx,  Gluaestio  philologica,  an 
variae  lectiones  ad  Codicem  V.  T.  ex  Mishna  coUigi 
possint.  Coburg.  1761. — Joh.  Aug.  Dathe,  Prolusio 
de  difficultate  rei  criticae,  in  V.  T.  caute  dijudicanda. 
Lips.  1762. — Gottfr.  Le.s.s.  de  cura,  quam  praesens 
textus  Hebraei  conditio  reqiiirit.  Halse.  1763. — And  in 
addition  to  these  the  above  mentioned  Tentamen  of 
Tychsen,  together  with  the  pubhcations  which  ap- 
peared in  rep]y  to  it  by  Dathe,  Bruns,  Michaelis 
and  Ha.ssencamp  :  and  lastly,  J.  G.  C.  Adler,  Judae- 
orum  codicis  sacri  rite  scribendi  leges  ad  recte  sestiman- 
dos  codices  manuscriptos  antiqitos  perutiles.  Hamb. 
1779. 

Besides  the  works  already  noticed,  it  merely  re- 
mains to  mention  those,  in  which  the  Hebrew  text  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  in  fact  critically  treated  accord- 
ing to  those  directions  and  by  means  of  these  helps,  or 
at  least  the  various  readmgs,  the  value  of  wliich  must 
be  determined  by  criticism,  are  collected  and  properly 
arranged.  Of  such  works  we  have  only  four,  or  only 
three  which  extend  over  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    They  are  as  follows  : 

Joh.  Bened.  Michaelis  Biblia  Hebraica.  Halae, 
1720,  Tom.  ii.  4to.* 

Biblia  Hebraica  cum  notis  criticis — Car.  Franc. 
HouBiGANT.  Paris.  1753.  Tom.  iv.  fol. 

Vetus  Testamentum  Hebraicum  cum  variis  lec- 
tionibus  ed.  Benjam.  Kennicott.  Oxon.  Tom.  i.  1776. 
Tom.  ii.  1780,  fol. 

De  Rossi,    Apparatus  Hebraeo-biblicus,   Parmae, 

•  Note  XXIII. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM.  67 

1782;  also,  by  the  same  author:  VariaB  lectiones  V. 
T.  Parmae,  1784,  vol.  ii.  fol. 

There  are  again  some  works,  which  in  part  con- 
tain, among  other  matter,  separate  portions  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  in  part  critically  collated  from  particular 
manuscripts,  which  may  be  considered  as  a  sort  of 
supplement  to  the  collection  of  Kennicott.  Of  these 
the  following  are  the  principal. 

Kritisches  Collegium  ueber  die  drey  wichtigste  Psal- 
men  von  Christo,  den  16,  40,  und  110:  A  course  of 
collegiate  lectures  on  the  three  most  important  Psalms 
relating  to  the  Messiah,  the  16th,  the  40th,  and  the 
110th,  by  J.  D.  MicHAELis.     Frank.  1756. 

Theod.  Chrlst.  Lilienthal,  Commentatio 
critica,  sistens  duorum  manuscriptorum,  Biblia  He- 
braica  continentium  notitiam,  cum  Sylloge  variarum 
lectionum  ex  utroque  excerptarum.  Regiomont.  1770. 

But  for  the  further,  and  in  general,  for  the  com- 
plete survey  of  what  has  been  done  until  the  present 
time  for  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text,  reference  may 
here  be  made  with  great  propriety  to  William  Fred- 
eric Hezel's  Versuch  einer  Geschichte  der  biblis- 
chen  Kritik  des  A.  T. :  Essay  towards  a  history  of  the 
Biblical  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament ;  which  made 
its  appearance  at  Halle  in  1780,  8vo. 

The  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  was  an  object 
of  attention  earlier  than  that  of  the  Old.  This  was  no 
doubt  in  a  great  measure  owing  to  the  fact,  that  the  fa- 
cilities to  be  relied  on  for  investigating  this  department 
were  much  more  numerous,  and  much  more  accessible, 
than  those  relating  to  the  other.  Every  library  of 
some  respectability  could  enumerate  many  Greek  ma- 


o6 


LITERARY  HELPS  TO 


nuscripts.  They  must  therefore  have  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  the  learned  almost  without  being  sought,  they 
must  have  invited  scholars  to  compare  many  of  them 
with  each  other,  and  from  the  result  of  these  compari- 
sons criticism  must  necessarily  have  advanced  to  a 
greater  degree  of  perfection.  These  comparisons  dis- 
closed, as  soon  as  tliey  were  instituted,  many  differences 
or  various  readings.  As  early  as  the  16th  century, 
Erasmus  and  the  two  Stephenses  drew  the  conclusion, 
that  the  most  important  consequences  must  result  from 
collecting  these  various  readings,  and  they  immediately 
began  the  work,  which  afterwards  in  the  following  age 
and  in  our  own  might  be  carried  further,  and  which 
in  fact  has  thus  been  carried.  Along  with  this  they 
beo^an  to  philosophize  on  the  principles  by  which, 
amidst  such  a  multiplicity  of  various  readings,  the  ge- 
nuine might  be  ascertained  and  the  original  restored. 
Their  principles  also  were  constantly  improving,  as 
additional  caution  in  the  application  or  use  of  them 
was  found  to  be  necessary,  and  a  more  correct  standard 
established  whereby  to  estimate  the  results  which  they 
afforded. 

Beside  some  important  works  of  the  preceding  cen- 
tury already  mentioned,  in  which  these  principles  and 
the  helps  for  the  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  are 
laboriously  investigated,  among  which  those  of  Simon 
are  again  distinguished  as  the  most  important,  the  fol- 
lowing, partly  of  that  century  and  partly  of  our  own, 
are  deserving  of  particular  notice. 

Jo.  Sauberti  variae  lectiones  textus  Graeci  Evang. 
Matthiae — cum  epicrisi  de  origine,  usu,  auctoritate  va- 
riarum  N.  T.  lectionum  in  srenere.  Helmstad.  1672. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM.  89 

Ad.  Rechenberg  Comment.de  variis  N.  T.  lectio- 
nibus.  Lips.  1690. 

Christoph.  Matth.  Pfaff  Commentatio  critica 
de  gemiiiiis  libromm  N.  T.  lectionibiis  ope  canonum 
ciuorundam  criticorum  feliciter  indagaiidis,  et  a  spu- 
riis  separandis.  Amstelod.  1709. 

John  Mill's  Prolegomena  to  his  New  Testament, 
afterwards  to  be  noticed,  and  Daniel  Whitby's  Exa- 
men  variarum  lectionum  Jo.  Millii  in  N.  T.  Lond.  1710. 

JoH.  GuiL.  Baier,  Dissertatio  de  variantium  lec- 
tionum nsu  et  abusu.  Altorf.  1712. 

JoH.  LuD.  FREvde  variis  lectionibus  N.  T.  Basil. 
1713. 

JoH.  Bened.  Michaelis  de  variis  lectionibus  N.  T. 
caute  colligendis  et  dijudicandis.     Halae.  1749. 

JoH.  Christ.  Klemmii  Principia  sacrae  criticae 
N.  T.  Tubing.   174(5. 

Anthonv  Blackwall's  sacred  classics  defended 
and  illustrated,  (Critica  Sacra  N.  T.  a  Christ.  Wollio 
Latine  versa.  Lips.  1736.) 

Wetstein's  Prolegomena  to  his  New  Testament.* 

JoH.  Alb.  Bengelii  Introductio  in  crisin  N.  T.,  in 
the  preface  to  his  edition. 

The  same  author's  Apparatus  criticus — ed.  secund. 
Tub.  1763. 

JoH.  Jac.  Griesbachii  curae  in  historiam  textus 
Grseci  epislolarum  Pauli.  Jense,  1777. 

Since,  in  the  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  very- 
much  depends  upon  the  ancient  versions  that  we  have 
of  it,  the  most  important  of  these  must  be  here  no- 


•  Note  XXIV. 
8 


90  LITERARY  HELPS  TO 

ticed,  together  with  the  labors  whicli  have  been  apphed 
to  them  by  various  learned  men,  in  order  to  make  them 
still  more  useful. 

Among  all  the  versions  the  principal  place  is  un- 
doubtedly to  be  assigned  to  the  ancient  Syriac,  (for 
there  are  several  of  more  modern  origin,)  which  may 
probably  be  considered  as  the  oldest  extant.  A  critical 
edition  of  this  version  was  prepared  by  John  Albert 
WiDMANSTADT  at  Vienna  in  1555,  which  was  re- 
printed in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot  in  1575  with  an  ap- 
pendix of  various  readings.  It  first  appeared  complete 
in  the  Paris  Polyglot  and  then  in  the  London,  after  the 
Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  and  the  second  epistle  of  St. 
Peter  and  third  of  St.  John  with  that  of  St.  Jude,  which 
had  hitherto  remained  unknown,  had  been  discovered 
and  published,  the  first  by  Louis  de  Dieu  in  1627,* 
and  the  others  by  Edward  Pococke  in  1630.  The 
whole  was  afterwards  published  by  Charles  Schaaf 
in  1717  at  Leyden  in  4to,  accompanied  by  a  Syriac 
lexicon  of  the  New  Testament  in  an  additional 
volume.! 

The  most  extensive  and  complete  accounts  of  these 
Syriac  versions  have  been  given  by  Glocester  Rid- 
ley, in  his  dissertatio  de  Syriacarum  versionum  indole 
ac  usu,  which  is  appended  to  Wetstein's  Libelli  ad  cri- 
sin  Novi  Testamenti,  which  Semler  in  1768  published 
separately ;  also  in  the  preface  to  Dathe's  Syriac 
Psalter,  Halle,  1768,  and  in  Gottlob  Christian 
Storr's  Observationes  super  Novi  Testamenti  versio- 

•  Apocalypsis  ex  MS.  Scaligeri — Syrlacc,  op.  Lcrov,  de  Dieu. 
1G27. 

t  Note  XXV. 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  91 

nibiis  Syriacis.  Stuttgardt.  1772.*  These  versions 
have  often  been  particularly  applied  to  the  criticism  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  to  the  correction  of  particular 
places,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  Cura3  in  versionem  Sy- 
riacam  Actuum  Apostolorum,  of  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
published  at  Goettingen  in  1775. 

There  are  also  several  Arabic  versions  of  the  New 
Testament.  At  least,  the  impressions  in  the  London 
and  Paris  Polyglots,  the  version  of  the  four  Gospels 
printed  at  Rome  in  1619,  and  the  edition  of  Thomas 
Erpenius  published  at  Leyden  in  1(516,  differ  much 
from  each  other.  See  Gottl.  Christ.  Storr,  dis- 
sertatio  do  Evangeliis  Arabicis.  Tubing.  1777. 

The  Ethiopic  version,  which  appeared  at  Rome  in 
two  parts  in  1548 — 9,  is  in  the  London  Polyglot,  but 
very  incorrectly  printed. 

The  Persian  versions  are  confined  to  the  four  Gos- 
pels, and  are  two  in  number,  an  older  with  notes  by 
Thoinias  Gr.'EVius,  and  a  more  modern  by  Abraham 
Wehloc,  London,  1657. 

An  Armenian  version  was  printed  at  Amsterdam 
in  1668  by  Bishop  Use  an,  and  the  Coptic  by  David 
WiLKiNs  in  1716. 

But  among  all  these  last  named  versions,  the 
Ethiopic  is  almost  the  only  one  which  is  in  some 
measure  useful  for  criticism.     Most  of  the  information 


*  The  following  publications  deserve  to  be  particularly  mentioned  : 
Versio  Syriaca  Philoxeniana  Sacrorum  Evangeliorum,  Joseph 
White,  cum  vers.  Lat.  Oxon.  Vol.  II.  1778.  4to. 

Novi  Testamenti  vcrsiones  Syriacoe,  Simplex,  Philoxeniana  et 
Hierosolymitana.  cum  observatt.  et  tabb.  sen.  ab  J.  G.  C.  Atler  : 
Hafnitc.  1789.  4to. 


98  LITERARY  HELPS  TO 

relating  to  it  is  collected  in  the  preface  by  Christ. 
Bened.  Michaelis  to  the  Evangelium  secundum 
Matthaeum  ex  versione  Ethiop.  interpretis — Christ. 
Aug.  Bode.  Halae,  1749.  The  last  named  scholar  pub- 
lished also  the  first  four  chapters  of  St.  Matthew  from  the 
Armenian  version,  translated  into  Latin,  Helmst.  1757, 
and  introduced  in  the  preface  the  necessary  accounts 
of  this  version.  Respecting  the  Coptic  the  greatest 
decree  of  information  is  to  be  found  in  the  Thesaurus 
epistolicus  la  Crozianus,  which  was  published  at 
Leipzig  in  1742. 

Far  more  important  however  for  the  criticism  of 
the  Greek  text  than  all  these  versions  just  mentioned, 
are  the  old  Latin  versions  or  rather  the  fragments  of 
them,  which  are  generally  referred  to  by  the  names 
'antiqua  TiRtina'  and  'Ttala,'  and  which  in  part  may  he 
far  more  ancient  than  the  time  of  Jerome's  version 
and  of  the  Vulgate.  Of  these  we  have  only  some 
fragments,  and  on  this  account  it  becomes  the  more 
difficult,  and  must  occupy  the  most  careful  attention  of 
the  greater  number  of  scholars,  to  collect  them  to- 
gether, to  prepare  them  for  publication,  and  to  decide 
upon  their  merits. 

The  principal  works  in  which  this  is  done,  and 
where  these  fragments  are  collected,  are  as  follows : 

Vulgata  antiqua  Latina  et  Itala  versio  Evangelii 
secundum  Matthaeum.  Ed.  studio  Johan.  Marti anay. 
Paris.  1698. 

Acta  Apostolorum  Graeco-Latine  e  cod  ice  Laudiano. 
Ed.  Thomas  Hearnius.  Oxon.  1715. 

Biblia  Sacra  Latinae  versionis,  seu  Vetus  Itala, 
opera  Pet.  Sabatier.  Remis.  1743.  iii.  fol. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  93 

Evangeliarium  qiiadruplex  Latina)  versionis  an- 
U({ua3 — in  lucem  edit,  a  Josepho  Blanchinio,  Rom. 
1749,  ii.  fol. 

To  these  may  be  added  the  old  Latin  text  of  the 
Gos])el  of  St.  John  from  the  Cambridge  manuscript, 
which  Semler  printed  at  the  end  of  his  paraphrase  of 
this  Gospel,  Halle,  1771. 

Respecting  these  Latin  versions,  see,  in  addition  to 
the  above  works,  particularly  the  third  dissertation  of 
Natalis  Alexander  in  his  Trias  dissertationum 
ecclesiasticarum. Paris.  1678  ;  also  Blanchini's  Vindi- 
ciae  canonicaruin  scripturarum  Yulgatse  Latinae,  Ro- 
mac,  1740,  with  the  observations  and  treatises  contained 
in  his  Evangeliarum  quadruplex  :  and  J.  S.  Semler's 
appendix  to  Wetstein"s  Prolegomena,  published  by  him 
at  Halle  in  1764. 

Lastly : — in  our  age  the  first  effort  of  much  import- 
ance has  been  made  to  employ  the  old  Gothic  version 
of  Ulphilas  to  the  criticism  of  the  New  Testament. 
As  early  as  the  year  1670  indeed,  George  Stiern- 
iiiELM  published  at  Stockholm  Evangelia  Gothice 
translata  ab  Ulphila,  with  parallel  northern  versions 
and  a  Glossarium  Ulphilo-Gothicum  ;  but  a  far  better 
edition  appeared  at  Oxford  under  the  following  title  : 
Sacrorum  Evangeliorum  Versio  Gothica  cum  interpre- 
tatione  Latina  ct  notis  Erici  Benzelii  ed.  Edw. 
IjYE.  1750.  John  Ihre,  in  his  Ulphilas  illustratus, 
threw  much  additional  lia^ht  on  this  version  ;  but  in 
the  year  1763.  superintendent  Francis  Ant.  Knittel 
made  public  a  Versio  Gothica  Ulphilae  nonnullorum 
capitum  epistolfc  ad  Romanos,  which  he  had  found  in 

a   manuscript   of   the    Wulfenbuttel   library.      Many 

8* 


94  LITERARY  HELPS  TO 

writings  relating  to  this  Gothic  version,  by  Ihre,  Hup- 
PEL,  EsBERG,  Gordon  and  Wachter,  may  be  found 
in  a  collection  of  Ihre,  with  the  title  :  Scripta  versio- 
nem  Ulphilanam  illustrantia,  edited  by  Buesching. 
Berl.  1773. 

Respecting  the  last  source  from  which  criticism 
may  derive  assistance,  namely,  the  works  of  the  an- 
cient ecclesiastical  writers,  it  is  not  necessary  to  say 
much.  It  is  but  little  of  which  it  can  avail  itself  from 
these  works,  and  even  this  must  first  be  sought  for 
with  great  labor  and  brought  together  :  although  there 
are  some  collections  from  writings  of  the  fathers, 
which  appear  to  have  been  made,  principally  with  the 
view  of  bringing  together  more  closely  what  they  con- 
tain that  is  useful  in  criticism  and  interpretation. 

The  collections  referred  to  are  those  in  which  the 
commentaries  of  many  of  the  fathers  on  separate  books 
of  the  Bible  are  arranged  and  placed  together,  and  for 
these  the  particular  name  of  Catenae  Patrum  has  been 
invented.  Thus,  for  example,  we  have  a  catena  of 
twenty-one  Greek  fathers  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mat- 
•  thew,  pubhshed  by  Peter  PossiN,at  Toulouse  in  1646; 
and  in  the  following  year  a  second  came  out  of  thirty 
others.  The  same  learned  man  published  also  a  catena 
on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  at  Rome  in  1673  ;  Baltha- 
SAR  Corderius  a  catena  Patrum  on  St.  John,  Ant- 
werp, 1630 ;  and  John  Hentenius  with  Morellus 
another,  on  the  Acts,  the  epistles  of  St.  John  and  the 
catholic  epistles,  Paris,  1631.  The  literary  and  his- 
torical notices  of  the  Catenae  have  been  collected  by 
Thomas  Ittig  in  a  separate  work :  de  bibliothecis  ei 
catenis  patrum.  Lips.  1707 ;  but  on  the  use  that  can  be 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  \tO 

made  of  them  in  the  criticism  and  interpretation  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  the  advantages  that  may  be  ex- 
pected to  result,  Dr.  Noesselt  has  pubhshed  a  work  en- 
titled :  Observationes  de  catenis  patrum  Grsecorum  in 
N.  T.  Hallee,  1762. 

All  that  now  remains  on  this  part  of  my  subject  is, 
to  mention  those  works  in  which,  from  the  sources 
stated  and  by  the  means  within  reach,  the  Greek  text 
has  in  fact  been  critically  examined  and  prepared ;  in 
other  words,  to  state  those  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  which  the  various  readings  are  collected,  esti- 
mated according  to  their  value,  and  judged  according 
to  the  degree  in  which  their  genuineness  is  more  or  less 
probable. 

Among  the  olde  ditions,  it  is  proper  to  mention  in 
the  first  place,  the  Greek  text  in  the  Compluten- 
sian  Polyglot,  which  was  taken  from  a  very  ancient 
A'^atican  manuscript,*  and  before  printing  compared 
with  others,  the  various  readings  of  which  are  noted  in 
the  margin.  This  text  therefore  continued  in  very 
great  repute  until  our  own  time,  when  Semler  in  1766 
published  at  Halle  his  Genauere  Untersuchung  der 
schlechten  Beschaffenheit  des  zu  Alcala  gedruckten 
Neuen  Testaments  ;  Critical  Examination  of  the  incor- 
rect character  of  the  New  Testament  printed  at  Alcala  : 
in  reply  to  which  John  Melch.  Goetze  printed  at 
Hamburg  in  the  same  year,  Ausfuehrliche  Vertheidi- 
gung  des  Complutensischen  Neuen  Testaments  mit 
beygefuegten  kritischen  Anmerkungen  gegen  Semler; 
The  Complutensian  New  Testament  defended  at  length 
against  Semler,  with  accompanying  critical  remarks.! 
•  Note  XXVI.  t  Note  XXVII. 


96  LITERARY  HELPS  TO 

After  the  Complutensian  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment follow,  in  order  of  time,  those  of  Erasmus.  In 
preparing  these  also  various  manuscripts  were  critically 
collated ;  and  therefore  at  least  the  three  editions  of 
1510, 1519  and  1522  frequently  diifer  from  each  other, 
because  in  each  of  them  the  editor  endeavored  to  im- 
prove the  text,  by  numerous  manuscripts  which  had 
not  before  been  used. 

These  publications  of  Erasmus  were  succeeded  by 
the  critical  editions  of  the  elder  Robert  Stephens, 
which  he  published  at  Paris  in  1546,  1549  and  1550. 

Among  the  critical  editions  of  Theodore  Beza, 
that  of  1582,  printed  by  Henry  Stephens,  deserves 
to  be  particularly  mentioned,  because  two  manu- 
scripts which  have  become  of  great  importance,  one 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Cambridge  manuscript, 
and  the  other  the  Clermont,  were  used  in  its  compila- 
tion. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  Stephen  Curcell^- 
us,  and  John  Fell  of  England,  meritoriously  aided  the 
cause  of  criticism,  the  former  in  his  edition  published 
at  Amsterdam  in  1658,  and  the  latter  in  his  which  came 
from  the  Oxford  press  in  1657. 

None  of  these  editions  however  will  bear  a  com- 
parison with  those  great  critical  works  which  our 
own  age  has  produced.  Among  these  the  first  is  that 
of  John  Mill  :  Novum  Testamentum  Graecum  cum 
variantibus  lectionibus.  Oxon.  1707,  fol.  It  was  re- 
published in  1710  at  Amsterdam  by  Louis  Kuster, 
with  a  larger  and  better  arransred  collection  of  various 
readings. 

Bengel  followed  Mill.     His  critical  edition  of  the 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  97 

New  Testament,  with  his  Apparatus  Criticus,  first  ap- 
peared at  Tuebingen  in  1734. 

A  greater  treasure  than  even  that  of  Bengel  was  af- 
terwards collected  by  John  James  Wetstein,  whose 
Novum  Testamentum  Graven m,  cum  variantibus  lec- 
tionibus  codicum  manuscriptorum,  editionum  aliarum, 
versionum  et  patrum,  made  its  appearance  at  Amster- 
dam, in  two  folio  volumes  in  the  years  1751,  1752. 

In  1774,  1775,  John  James  Griesbach  published 
his  Novum  Testamentum  Graecum  cum  textu  ad  fidem 
codicum,  versionum  et  patrum  emendato.  Vol.  i.  ii.  8vo.* 

Another  service  for  the  criticism  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  been  accomplished  still  more  recently  by  the 
same  learned  man,  in  his  Symbola3  criticae  ad  supplen- 
das  et  corrigendas  variarum  Novi  Testamenti  lection um 
coUectioTiRs-  -cum  dRscriptione  pt  examine  mnltonim 
codicum  Graecorum  Novi  Testamenti.  Hal.  T.I.  1785. 
T.  II.  1793,  Svo. 

In  1788,  the  new  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment by  Professor  Matth^ei  in  Wittenberg  was 
completed  in  twelve  volumes,  in  which  many  Moscow 
manuscripts,  which  had  not  previously  been  collated, 
are  employed. 

Earlier  in  the  same  year  appeared  at  Copenhagen  : 
Birch  1 1  quatuor  Evangelia  Graeca  cum  variantibus 
lectionibus  codd.  manuscript.  Bibliothecae  Vaticanae 
Barberinae  et  cet.  1784,  4to,  and  a  year  earlier  :  Novum 
Testamentum  ad  codicem  Vindobonensem  Graece  ex- 
pressum.  Varietatem  lectionum  addidit  Franc.  Car. 
Alter.  Prof  Gymnas.  Vindob.  vol.  ii.  Viennap,  1787, 
in  royal  octavo. 

•  Note  XXVIII. 


98 


METHOD  OF  STUDY. 


Lastly,  it  is  proper  to  mention  the  fac-similes  lately 
published  of  two  manuscripts,  which  have  always  been 
considered  as  of  the  highest  importance  for  criticism, 
namely  the  Alexandrine  and  the  Cambridge.  The  for- 
mer, given  to  the  world  in  1789,*  was  the  result  of  the 
application  of  Woide,  and  for  the  latter,  published  in 
1 793,  at  the  cost  of  the  university  of  Cambridge,  we  are 
indebted  to  the  labors  of  Thomas  Kipling.  Codex 
Theod.  Bezae  Cantabrigiensis,  Evangelia  etActa  Apos- 
tolorum  complectens,  quadratis  literis  Grseco-Latinus — 
Academia  aspirante  venerandas  has  vetustatis  reliquias 
summa  fide  adumbravit — expressit,  edidit — codicis  his- 
toriam — notasque  adjecit  Thomas  Kipling,  S.  T.  P. 
Cantabrig.  1793.  Vol.  ii.  fol.  Thus  they  have  been 
brought  within  the  reach  of  the  learned,  and  can  be 
more  generally  and  more  easily  vised. 


CHAPTER      XI. 

After  giving  this  account  of  the  literary  helps  for 
the  study  of  sacred  philology  and  criticism,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  point  out  the  most  direct  method,  in  which 
the  study  of  each  can  most  easily  and  successfully  be 
pursued.  Only  with  respect  to  this  kind  of  literature, 
there  is  one  circumstance,  which  must  give  to  the  dis- 
cussions which  it  involves  a  particular  direction,  if 
they  lead  to  an  useful  and  applicable  result. 

The  particular  circumstance  referred  to  is  this.  It 
is  not  only  a  doubtful  point,  whether  an  especial  study 
of  this   branch   of  literature   is   necessary  for  every 

*  HoRNE  says,  ITf'G.     Introduction,  Vol.  II.    Part  II.     Appendix 
p.  19. 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  99 

divine,  but  it  may  actually  admit  of  doubt  whether  it 
IS  possible  for  every  oue.  The  inquiry  deserves  atten- 
tion ;  for  should  these  doubts  in  the  end  really  prove 
to  be  well  founded,  it  will  certainly  be  more  corres- 
pondent to  the  object  in  view  and  more  useful,  here  to 
direct  our  attention  rather  to  the  means  to  be  employed 
in  order  with  the  least  disadvantage  to  avoid  these 
studies,  and  the  conditions  under  which  this  indulgence 
is  admissible,  than  to  spend  our  time  on  the  method  of 
pursuing  them  with  the  most  success.  But  it  may  be 
almost  anticipated,  that  these  doubts  will  appear  en- 
tirely groundless,  in  proportion  as  they  are  the  more 
closely  and  distinctly  viewed. 

The  least  that  can  be  required  for  the  proper  study 
of  these  branches  of  literature,  or  at  least  that  which 
becomes  the  first  requsite  is  undoubtedly  this :  that  the 
knowledge  necessary,  and  pertaining  to  it,  must  itself  be 
drawn  from  those  sources  from  which  alone  it  can  be 
drawn  with  certainty.  Whoever,  for  exam])le,  deter- 
mines to  study  the  philology  of  the  Hebrew  language 
for  himself,  must  himself  discover  by  means  of  the 
helps  tliat  can  be  employed,  its  spirit,  its  character,  its 
peculiarities,  the  significations  of  its  words,  the  very 
characteristics  of  its  figures ;  thus  he  must  draw  out 
its  character  from  the  analogy  of  the  other  oriental 
languages  which  have  sprung  from  it  or  are  connected 
with  it,  and  the  meanings  of  its  words  and  phrases  from 
a  comparison  of  die  various  versions  which  we  have 
of  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  since  these  are  the  only 
sources  which  can  supply  such  knowledge  respecting 
them  as  may  be  confidently  relied  on. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  this  knowledge  has  frequently 
been  collected  and  broujjht  too^ether  from  those  scat- 


100  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

tered  sources,  in  many  works  appropriated  to  such 
subjects,  as  in  grammars  and  lexicons  of  the  Hebrew 
language;  and  therefore  it  might  at  first  be  thought, 
that  it  can  now  be  derived  entirely  from  these  works. 
Such  a  course  would  undoubtedly  save  an  immense 
expense  of  time  and  trouble :  but  then  who  does  not 
perceive,  that  it  is  not  a  man's  own  study  which  is 
bestowed  on  these  languages,  but  that  he  merely  avails 
himself  of  the  studies  of  others? 

In  this  case,  it  is  not  our  own  inquiries  which  we 
institute  into  the  spirit  of  the  language  and  the  signifi- 
cations of  its  words;  it  is  nothing  more  than  the  results 
of  the  inquiries  of  others,  which  we  thereby  assume  as 
true,  without  having  examined  into  their  truth  for  our- 
selves, or  being  able  to  conduct  such  an  examination. 
From  this  last  circumstance  principally,  the  study, 
when  thus  pursued,  cannot  properly  be  considered  as 
an  investigation  of  the  subject  for  one's  self,  for  this 
shows  most  clearly,  that  in  this  way  we  can  only  see 
with  the  eyes  of  others. 

Thus,  for  example,  we  may  find  in  every  Hebrew 
lexicon  a  great  number  of  words  given,  which  are 
derived  from  Arabic  roots,  or  from  primitive  words 
preserved  in  the  Arabic  language,  the  significations  of 
which  are  principally  determined  by  it.  They  may 
indeed  in  the  lexicons  be  taken  from  this  source  with 
perfect  correctness :  but  if  the  student  has  no  know- 
ledge of  Arabic,  it  is  evident  that  he  must  depend 
upon  the  truth  and  fidelity  of  the  compiler  of  the  lexi- 
con, or  of  the  first  scholar  who  discovered  the  Arabic 
roots,  and  assume  it  as  true,  that  the  signification  of 
the  Hebrew  words  is  correctly  given.  Whatever 
reasons  or  whatever  presumptions  we  may  have  in 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  101 

favor  of  this,  still  we  do  not  obtain  views  of  our  own, 
we  are  merely  trusting  to  those  of  others ;  we  must 
therefore  always  be  without  that  substantial  know- 
ledge which  our  own  study  and  nothing  else  can  give. 

The  case  is  the  same  with  the  particular  philology 
of  the  Greek  text.  With  regard  to  the  criticism  of 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  remarks  are 
still  more  applicable.  Here  also  we  find  in  particular 
works  most  of  the  materials,  which  the  industry  of 
individual  scholars  has  collected  with  unwearied  pains 
on  the  various  ways  which  criticism  can  pursue  in 
making  her  discoveries.  The  different  readings  of 
several  hundreds  of  manuscripts,  the  flill  harvest  of 
variations  to  be  gathered  from  the  old  versions  and  the 
writings  of  the  fathers,  are  contained  in  the  collections 
of  Kemiicott  and  De  Rossi  relating  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  in  the  works  of  Wetstein,  Bengel,  and 
Griesbach  on  the  New.  The  student  therefore  has 
nothing  further  to  do  but  to  form  his  own  judgment  on 
the  value  of  the  various  readings,  and  to  estimate  the 
degree  of  their  probable  genuineness  or  spuriousness. 
But  what  must  be  the  foundation  of  this  judgment  I 
and  from  what  must  this  estimate  proceed  / 

Is  it  not  evident  that  this  must  be  historical  infor- 
mation respecting  the  ap^e,  tiie  character,  and,  what  is 
drawn  from  these  points,  the  value  of  the  manuscripts, 
from  which  the  collection  of  various  readings  has 
been  made  ?  Is  it  not  conjectures  on  the  derivation  of 
0!ie  from  another,  on  the  family-likeness  of  one  with 
another,  on  the  interpolation  of  one  from  another,  on 
a  hundred  other  circumstances  relating  to  the  country 
to  which  they  owe  their  origin,  to  their  transcribers, 

9 


102  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

to  the  fate  they  have  undergone,  which  must  all  be 
considered  in  forming  this  judgment  ?  This  informa- 
tion and  these  conjectures, — on  the  correctness  of 
which  the  most,  or  properly  speaking  the  whole  de- 
pends,— we  must  believe  on  the  word  of  the  collector, 
who  collated  and  described  the  manuscripts.  Yet  this 
cannot  possibly  be  called  a  man's  own  study  of  this 
branch  of  knowledge ;  it  is  or  it  results  in  nothing  more 
than  a  historical  acquaintance  with  what  others  have 
communicated  respecting  it :  and  that  the  acquaint- 
ance thus  obtained  neither  does  nor  can  always  satisfy 
every  wish,  became  particularly  observable  among 
our  scholars  on  the  appearance  of  Kennicott's  edition 
of  the  Bible. 

It  is  as  evident  then  as  anything  can  possibly  be, 
that  in  this  department  of  learning,  sacred  criticism, 
we  must  frequently  yield  to  the  pressure  of  necessity, 
and  satisfy  ourselves  merely  with  this  compendious 
historical  study  of  the  subject,  because  the  real  study  of 
it  for  one's  self  is  with  thousands  absolutely  impossible. 

The  helps  which  must  necessarily  be  used  in  study- 
ing it  in  this  manner,  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  thou- 
sands can  no  more  employ  them  than  if  they  had  no 
existence.  The  principal  sources  from  which  criti- 
cism must  draw,  the  old  manuscripts  still  remaining, 
are  dispersed  in  all  the  libraries  of  Europe  ;  they  can 
only  be  consulted  in  the  places  where  they  are  kept ; 
and  thus  to  make  use  of  them  not  only  requires  an 
expense  of  time  and  trouble,  but  also  of  money,  which 
can  be  afforded  by  very  few  scholars.  Nothing  less 
than  the  public  support  of  the  English  nation  placed 
Kennicott  in  a  condition  to  accomplish  his  undertaking. 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  103 

It  is  preposterous  therefore  to  suppose  that  sacred 
criticism  could  ever  be  a  subject  to  be  studied  by  all, 
or  even  by  many  in  the  manner  above  stated. 

With  the  sacred  philology  of  our  Hebrew  and 
Greek  texts,  the  case  is  almost  the  same,  although 
there  are  some  other  circumstances  which  have  an 
influence  on  this  subject.  If  in  this  department  the 
helps  are  not  so  expensive  and  rare  as  in  criticism — 
although  they  also  are  sufficiently  so,  especially  in 
Hebrew  philology — yet  the  greater  part  of  students, 
who  would  pursue  this  branch  of  knowledge  as  a 
distinct  part  of  exegetical  theology,  could  not  devote 
that  time  which  would  be  required  by  such  a  course 
of  study,  as  an  examination  of  every  point  for  one's 
self  would  demand. 

For  example : — a  fundamental  and  learned  know- 
ledge of  Hebrew  necessarily  comprehends  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  other  oriental  languages,  particularly 
with  those  which  contain  the  most  ancient  and  impor- 
tant versions  of  the  Hebrew  text.  The  greater  pro- 
portion of  these  versions  are  only  to  be  found  in  the 
Polyglots,  which  are  costly.  The  other  literary  helps 
for  acquiring  these  languages,  those  for  instance  to  be 
used  in  learning  the  Arabic,  Samaritan  and  Ethiopic, 
cannot  be  brought  together  without  considerable  ex- 
pense, and  even  then  it  is  frequently  difficult  to  secure 
them.  But  after  this  is  done,  how  will  a  student,  who 
in  a  period  of  three  or  four  years  must  traverse  the 
whole  field  of  theology,  find  time  to  devote  to  each  of 
these  languages  in  particular  ? 

A  merely  general  and  superficial  acquaintance  with 
these  languages  is  of  little  or  no  use  ;  for  the  very  fact 


104  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

that  they  are  to  be  used  in  order  to  illustrate  another, 
shows  that  a  mere  ijrammatical  knowledge  of  their  let- 
ters,  their  forms  and  some  of  their  words,  cannot  be 
very  extensively  applied.  For  this  purpose  a  philoso- 
phical study  of  the  spirit  of  them  is  necessary :  a 
study  which  requires  not  months  only,  but  years. 

Thus  it  becomes  necessary  for  most  persons  to 
abandon  all  expectation  of  attaining  this  object.  Hap- 
pily, however,  this  necessity  does  not  involve  an  irrepa- 
rable loss ;  for  it  may  in  fact  be  shown,  that  to  study 
those  branches  of  learning-  for  one's  self  from  orig-inal 
sources  is,  in  general,  to  be  considered  as  much  unne- 
cessary as  it  is  impossible. 

We  have  certainly  every  reasonable  motive  to  place 
sufficient  confidence  in  the  results  of  the  investigations 
which  have  been  pursued  on  these  subjects  by  scholars^ 
who  were  able  to  devote  their  particular  attention  to 
this  kind  of  learning.  With  respect  to  the  probity 
with  which  they  have  given  these  results  to  the  world, 
we  have  no  reason  to  doubt ;  although  in  critical  dis- 
closures this  is  a  point  which  must  come  into  serious 
consideration,  of  which  the  deceit  that  was  practised 
in  relation  to  the  famous  codex  Ravianus,  by  which  so 
many  critics  were  imposed  upon,  affords  a  very  re- 
markable illustration. 

But  that  their  investigations  are  accurate,  that  the 
way  in  which  they  have  proceeded  is  right,  and  that 
the  discoveries  which  they  have  made  therein  are  re- 
ally true  and  worthy  of  credit,  is  proved  from  the  fact, 
that  although  many  persons  have  pursued  these  inves- 
tigations, and  in  some  cases  by  methods  of  their  own. 
yet  in  general  the  same  results  have  been  produced. 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  105 

When  Schulten,  for  example,  determines  the  mean- 
ing of  a  Hebrew  word  from  the  Arabic,  or  when  Mill,  in 
defending  a  reading,  appeals  to  the  fact,  that  it  is  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  the  student  who 
has  no  knowledge  of  Arabic  may  confidently  regard  the 
signification  of  the  Hebrew  word  given  by  Schultens 
as  the  true  one,  and  he  who  has  never  seen  the  Alex- 
andrme  manuscript  may  still  be  secure  of  having  the 
reading  contained  in  it;  for  Schultens  was  not  the  only 
man  who  found  the  signification  referred  to  in  the  Ara- 
bic,  and  many  besides  Mill  have  examined  the  Alexan- 
drine manuscript,  and  found  there  the  same  reading. 

If  therefore,  in  literature  of  tiiis  kind,  we  are  often 
obliged  to  believe  merely  what  has  been  discovered  by 
others,  without  being  able  ourselves  to  ascertain  the 
correctness  of  the  discovery,  it  is  still  exceedingly  rare 
that  we  are  obliged  to  trust  a  single  witness  :  there  are 
always  many,  who  pledge  themselves  for  the  truth  of 
the  discovery,  and  consequently  make  it  the  more  cre- 
dible. Indeed  we  must  rest  satisfied  with  such  evi- 
dence in  a  hundred  other  cases  ;  and  we  do  satisfy  our- 
selves with  it  even  in  a  multitude  of  cases  whore  we 
are  not  necessarily  obliged  to  do  so,  No  reason  there- 
fore can  be  assigned,  why  we  cannot  and  may  not  do  the 
same,  in  relation  to  the  knowledge  under  consideration. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  it  might  be  inferred,  and 
not  without  very  plausible  reasons,  that  it  is  a  very  un- 
necessary expense  of  labor  and  time  to  study  these 
subjects  for  ourselves,  were  it  not  that  we  have  .so  many 
grounds  for  believing,  that  a  further  use  of  the  original 
sources  will  supply  a  vast  deal  more  than  has  hitherto 
been  drawn  from  them.     Yet  even  this  suggests  ano- 


106  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

ther  circumstance,  which  makes  it  still  more  evident, 
that  a  personal  examination  of  the  original  sources  of 
this  learning  cannot  be  necessary  in  general  or  for  all, 
and  why  this  is  the  case. 

It  is  a  decided  point,  that  the  nicer  and  more  inti- 
mate knowledge  of  the  language  of  our  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures is  still  susceptible  of  very  great  improvement,  by 
a  fiirther  cultivation  of  oriental  literature  in  general,  en- 
riching ourselves  with  its  abundance  :  and  it  is  also  as 
certain,  that  the  criticism  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  may  yet  anticipate  many  very  valuable  dis- 
coveries, by  still  further  pursuing  its  investigations  in 
the  road  which  has  been  opened  for  it  with  so  much 
trouble.  There  is  therefore  great  reason  to  wish  that 
many  more  scholars  would  devote  themselves  entirely  or 
principally  to  this  kind  of  literature,  from  which  so 
much  may  be  derived.  Yet  we  may  confidently  be- 
lieve, that  the  most  important,  the  most  useful,  and  the 
most  necessary  matter,  which  it  contains,  has  already 
been  brought  to  light. 

So  far  indeed  has  our  sacred  philology  been  already 
cultivated  in  respect  to  the  languages  of  the  Bible,  that 
it  can  supply  sufficient  exegetical  materials  for  a  gene- 
rally correct  explanation  of  the  true  sense  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures ;  and  criticism  has  also  already  thrown  so 
much  light  upon  it,  that  it  may  with  sufficient  certainty 
be  considered  as  secured  in  all  important  and  principal 
places  against  interpolations  not  yet  discovered,  and 
also  may  always  come  to  a  probable  conclusion  as  to 
the  genuine  reading.  It  was  this  that  was  necessary 
to  be  done,  since  otherwise  interpretation  could  not 
have  taken  one  step  with  security.     It  is  this  therefore, 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  107 

which  every  one  who  intends  to  make  theology  his 
study  necessarily  requires  ;  but  he  requires  nothing 
more.  Since  now  he  can  secure  this  merely  by  an  in- 
dustrious attention  to  the  histoiy  of  sacred  philology 
and  sacred  criticism,  the  study  of  their  original 
sources  becomes  superfluous  to  him,  as  soon  as  he  is 
obliged  to  confine  himself  to  what  is  necessary. 

By  prosecuting  this  study,  verj'^  much  light  may 
undoubtedly  be  thrown  on  separate  and  particular 
places  ;  but  it  is  not  either  intended  or  allowable,  that 
every  one  who  finds  no  difficulty  in  the  general, 
should  immediately  attempt  to  illustrate  such  places. 
Persons  moreover  will  always  be  found,  who  are  able 
to  do  this,  and  who  may  do  it  with  propriety.  At 
the  same  time,  however,  every  one  who  is  obliged  to 
examine  the  whole  subject  of  tlieology  within  a  limited 
period,  and  who  would  not  confine  his  attention  to  this 
particular  department ;  in  other  words,  every  one  who 
must  run  through  his  whole  theological  course  in  the 
usual  space  of  three  or  four  years,  not  only  may  with- 
out hesitation  disjicnse  witli  studying  the  subjects  un- 
der consideration  from  their  proper  original  sources, 
but  he  may  do  so  without  disadvantage.  But  to  guard 
against  the  possibility  of  being  misunderstood,  I  would 
remark,  that  this  assertion  is  liy  no  means  equivaU'iit 
to  saying,  that  the  student  may  continue  utterly  igno- 
rant of  this  knowledge,  and  altogether  disregard  these 
subjects.  It  may  even  scarcely  be  necessary  to  give  in 
detail  a  different  plan  of  study  that  may,  and  in  this 
case  must  be  adopted ;  and  yet  some  remarks  may  be 
added  on  this  point,  chiefly  in  order  to  make  it  the  more 
evident,  that  such  a  plan  requires  comparatively  but 


108  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

little  labor,  and  consequently  to  make  it  the  more  pal- 
pable, that  an  indisposition  to  undertake  this  little  is 
utterly  unpardonable. 


CHAPTER     XII. 


In  the  first  place,  with  regard  to  the  philology  of 
our  Hebrew  Scriptures  :  if  our  acquaintance  with  it  is 
not  to  be  drawn  from  the  original  sources  themselves, 
scarcely  anything  further  is  really  necessary  but  a  lexi- 
con and  a  grammar,  in  order  in  the  shortest  possible 
time  to  make  sucli  progress,  as  to  be  able  to  read  and 
understand  the  text  with  facility. 

The  language  has  in  comparison  with  others  so  few 
rules,  and  these  again  so  few  exceptions,  that  any  me- 
mory can  retain  them  without  great  effort.  Although 
indeed  this  cannot  be  accomplished  in  so  short  a  time 
as  the  old  writer  William  Schickardt  assigned  to 
it,  who  offered  to  teach  Hebrew  in  four  and  twenty 
hours,  and  therefore  called  his  grammar,  which  he  had 
divided  into  as  many  parts  or  homs.  a  horologium ; 
yet  in  fact  a  vast  deal  more  time  is  not  required  for 
this  purpose.  These  rules  are  subsequently  the  more 
readily  impressed  upon  the  memory  in  the  business  of 
analyzing,  which  must  immediately  afterwards  be  un- 
dertaken ;  and  by  a  moderate  degree  of  practice  for  a 
space  of  time  not  much  longer  than  that  occupied  in 
committing  the  rules,  this  becomes  easy.* 

The  exercise  of  analyzing  is  generally  supposed  to 
be  the  most  difficult,  and  therefore  undertaken  with  the 

•  Note  XXIX. 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  109 

greatest  reluctance  ;  in  fact  it  is  often  entirely  neglect- 
ed. But  it  is  clearly  impossible,  ever  to  acquire  a  fun- 
damental knowledge  of  a  dead  language,  without  much 
practice  in  analysis.  It  consists  simply  in  examining 
tlie  forms  of  all  words  occurring  in  the  language,  by 
the  rules  of  formation  given  in  the  grammar,  and  of 
discovering  the  origin  of  each  of  these  rules.  It  affords 
a  two-fold  advantage  :  for  while  in  this  way  the  rules 
become  more  familiar,  and  their  application  easier, 
their  correctness  is  at  the  same  time  more  evident,  since 
every  form  of  a  word  which  can  be  analyzed  according 
to  a  rule,  is  in  fact  a  confirmation  of  the  rule. 

After  the  student  has  thus  analysed  a  small  part  of 
any  one  of  our  Hebrew  books,  the  first  four  or  five 
chapters  only  of  Genesis,  for  example,  carefiilly  exa- 
mining every  word  that  they  contain ;  if  he  should 
read  through  the  whole  book,  and  perhaps  a  couple  of 
books,  or  the  Pentateuch,  with  the  aid  of  a  lexicon, 
drawing  from  this  source  the  signification  of  every* 
word  with  which  he  was  unacquainted,  and  at  the  same 
time  impressing  it  upon  his  memory ;  he  will  have  ac- 
quired almost  all  that  is  necessary,  and  all  that  can  be 
obtained  in  this  shorter  method  of  study,  for  he  will 
thus  be  almost  in  a  situation  to  read  all  the  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  without  a  grammar  or 
lexicon.* 

He  also  who  studies  Hebrew  from  its  original 
sources,  does  not  properly  speaking  acquire  more  know- 
ledge ;  his  knowledge  is  only  of  another  kind.  He  can 
state  the  reasons  for  the  rules  of  the  language,  from  the 
analogy  of  the  other  oriental  languages,  on  the  ground 
*  Or  rather  by  the  occasional  use  of  them.     Tr. 


110  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

of  his  personal  examination  ;  but  still  the  rules  which 
he  also  has  acquired  are  identically  the  same  as  in  the 
other  case.  He  can  satisfy  himself,  moreover,  from  the 
usa^e  of  the  cognate  languages,  that  a  Hebrew  word 
must  have  a  certain  definite  meaning ;  but  it  is  the 
same  meaning  which  has  already  been  introduced  from 
these  sources  in  the  better  class  of  lexicons  of  the  lan- 
guage. The  difference  therefore,  as  I  have  already 
shown,  consists  in  this,  that  the  latter  method  enables 
us  to  make  the  \'ery  same  discoveries  which  have  al- 
ready been  made  by  grammarians  and  lexicographers, 
and  also  to  try  the  correctness  of  their  discoveries, 
while  in  the  former  we  must  altogether  depend  upon 
these  for  our  information.  But  this  difference  is  not  of 
very  great  importance,  since  there  is  sufficient  reason, 
as  already  stated,  on  the  whole  to  depend  upon 
them. 

But  if  indeed  the  examination  and  learning  of 
others  are  after  all  to  be  relied  on,  so  soon  as  the  ori- 
ginal sources  themselves  are  abandoned,  it  may  be 
said  that,  in  this  case,  we  may  spare  ourselves  even 
this  shorter  course  of  study  of  the  original  languages 
of  the  Bible,  and  as  well  depend  entirely  upon  the 
examination  and  learning  of  the  translators. 

It  would  seem  indeed  to  be  a  matter  of  indifference, 
whether  we  trust  the  word  of  a  lexicogi'apher  or  of  a 
translator,  that  a  Hebrew  expression  has  the  meaning 
attached  to  it  by  the  one  or  the  other  ;  for  that  the 
language  has  been  studied  from  its  original  sources, 
may  as  well  be  supposed  of  the  latter  as  of  the  for- 
mer. If  therefore  only  one  such  translation  is  at 
hand,  it  would  seem  capable  of  affording  us  as  much 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  Ill 

service,  and  at  least  as  much  certainty,  as  may  be 
derived  from  our  own  knowledge  of  the  langiiage 
drawn  merely  from  the  grammar  and  a  lexicon. 

It  must  be  confessed,  that  this  is  not  altogether 
idle.  And  yet  this  very  objection  tends  to  show,  that 
such  a  knowledge  of  the  language  as  may  be  acquired 
in  the  compendious  method  laid  down,  must  not  be 
represented  as  superfluous. 

In  the  translation  of  Luther  which  is  in  most  gen- 
eral use  among  us,  it  is  by  no  means  the  case  that  we 
may  always  depend  upon  the  fidelity  of  the  translator  ; 
for  although  the  service  performed  by  Luther  was 
exceedingly  great  for  the  time  in  which  he  lived,  yet 
at  present,  the  aid  afforded  by  such  a  knowledge  of 
the  language  as  may  be  attained  from  our  later  He- 
brew lexicons,  supplies  us  in  many  places  with  a  sense 
quite  different  from  his ;  and  therefore  we  may  still 
expect  no  small  advantages  from  the  use  of  them.* 

With  respect  to  more  recent  translations,  as  for 
instance,  that  of  the  Old  Testament  by  Michaelis,  it 
may  be  granted  that  this  difficulty  may  be  removed. 
But  here  applies  the  observation  which  has  been  made 
in  reference  to  profane  philology,  that  the  spirit  of  a 
work  can  never  be  represented  in  so  clear  and  lively  a 
manner,  even  in  the  best  and  most  faithful  translation, 
as  it  is  displayed  in  the  original  language. 

The  sense  of  a  writer  may  be  transferred  into  a 
foreign  tongue ;  but  of  his  spirit,  of  the  form  in  which 
he  represents  his  view,  and  of  the  nicer  adaptation 
of  his  ideas  to  this  form,  and  even  to  each  other,  some- 

*  The  remarks  of  the  author  respecting  Luther's  translation  are 
applicable  also  to  tlie  standard  version  in  English.     Tr, 


112  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

thing  must  unavoidably  be  lost,  because  something  of 
all  tliese  is  inseparably  connected  merely  with  his 
lanofuaffe.  Whoever  then  can  read  him  in  his  own 
language  always  possesses  some  advantage,  and  in- 
deed not  a  small  one,  over  the  reader  to  whom  he  is 
intelligible  only  by  means  of  a  translation,  even  the 
most  faithful  that  can  be  made.  This  consideration 
alone  ought  to  have  weight  enough  to  induce  every 
theologian  to  obtain  at  least  as  much  knowledge  of 
Hebrew,  as  is  required  for  that  purpose  ;  and  it  should 
have  the  more  weight  in  proportion  to  the  facility  with 
which  this  knowledge  may  be  gained,  and  the  small 
degree  of  time  and  effort  that  it  requires. 

In  the  second  place.  The  necessity  of  studying 
the  original  language  applies  to  the  Greek  text  of  the 
New  Testament  for  reasons  which  I  might  almost  say 
are  more  numerous  and  weighty  ;  and  it  applies  here  in 
proportion  as  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament 
is  more  important  for  the  divine  than  that  of  tlie  Old. 
In  this  case  too,  it  is  easier  to  draw  our  knowledge  of 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament  immediately  from 
one  of  the  original  sources,  by  which  it  may  be  sup- 
plied with  the  greatest  certainty. 

This  is,  as  was  before  shown,  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament.  For,  as  it  is  certain  that 
the  Hellenistic  language  is  susceptible  of  much  illus- 
tration from  the  oriental  tongues,  by  the  intermixture 
of  which  with  the  pure  Greek  it  arose  ;  so  is  it  equally 
certain  that  more  light,  which  may  be  confidently 
trusted,  is  thrown  upon  it  by  that  version  alone,  than 
can  be  introduced  from  all  other  sources.  But  this  ver- 
sion is  not  so  difficult  of  acquisition,  nor  so  costly,  nor 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  113 

SO  hard  to  use,  that  it  may  not  be  employed  by  every 
one,  whose  object  is  to  learn  the  true  spirit  of  the  lan- 
guage, in  which  are  comprehended  the  most  important 
of  our  religious  writings. 

It  may  therefore,  without  hesitation  perhaps,  be 
considered  as  the  duty  of  every  one,  to  acquire  at  least 
as  much  acquaintance  with  this  version  as  with  the 
text  of  the  Old  Testament,  since  the  advantages  to  be 
derived  from  it  are  so  abundant,  and  at  the  same  time 
so  easily  obtained.  A  mere  grammatical  knowledge 
of  the  Hebrew  text  is  sufficient,  in  order  to  make  most 
of  the  idioms  that  distino^uish  the  languajje  of  this  ver- 
sion  clear  and  observable.  And  merely  to  have  caught 
as  much  of  the  spirit  of  the  Hebrew  language  as  al- 
ways communicates  itself  by  such  a  grammatical  know- 
ledge and  depends  upon  it,  is  sufficient  almost  to  show, 
how  such  a  Greek  language  must  originate  among 
men  accustomed  to  think  only  in  Hebrew,  when  they 
would  express  in  the  former  language  those  concep- 
tions which  they  had  always  formed  in  the  latter.  In 
this  way  a  preliminary  acquaintance  with  the  language 
of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  Apostles  will  become 
so  familiar,  that  it  must  afterwards  as  soon  as  uttered 
be  recognized  as  the  same  with  the  other. 

A  method  of  studying  this  subject  thus  offers  itself 
to  our  attention,  as  natural  as  it  is  easy  and  brief; 
which  although  indeed  it  cannot  be  altogether  called  a 
study  of  the  sources  for  ourselves,  is  still  by  no  means 
to  be  considered  as  merely  historical  and  dependent  on 
compendious  abridgments. 

Before  the  student  begins  his  philological  exami- 
nation   of   the   New  Testament,  let  him  first  read 

10 


114  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

the  Septiiagint  version,  but  in  constant  connexion  with  • 
the  Hebrew  text.  In  this  reading,  as  often  as  a  pecu- 
har  idiom  of  the  Hebrew  language  occurs,  his  atten- 
tion should  be  particularly  directed  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  translator  has  expressed  it.  He  should  espe- 
cially impress  upon  his  mind  the  form  and  the  expres- 
sions, in  which  national  and  religious  ideas  of  the  Jews 
have  been  translated.  In  order  to  fix  them  the  more 
firmly  in  his  memory,  it  would  be  well  for  him  to  make 
a  short  list  of  them  ;  and  with  this  preparation  let  him 
then  read  the  New  Testament.* 

This  preparation  will  not  only  be  attended  with  the 
result,  that  the  student  will  not  for  a  moment  doubt  re- 
specting the  kind  of  dialect  that  he  finds  in  these  wri- 
tings, but  it  will  have  the  still  more  important  effect, 
that  at  the  very  first  reading  he  will  receive  correct 
impressions  respecting  many  important  views,  and  this 
must  have  the  most  beneficial  influence  on  his  subse- 
quent proper  study  of  interpretation. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  also  self-evident,  that  by  con- 
tinued and  repeated  reading  of  the  New  Testament 
and  of  that  translation,  in  part  connected,  in  part  al- 
ternately, the  language  of  both  m?y  and  must  become 
more  familiar,  even  their  minute  peculiarities  more  ob- 
servable, and  the  whole  structure  of  the  phraseolog}' 
which  prevails  in  them,  better  known.  But  as  soon  as 
this  course  has  been  pursued  to  a  certain  degree,  the 
Concordance  of  the  Septuagint  by  Trommius,  and  the 
Thesauirus  of  Biel,  [or  Schleusner,]  may  be  used  with 
the  greatest  advantage,  as  the  principal  and  most  ex- 

*Note  XXX. 


METHOD  OP  STUDY.  115 

cellent  works  to  aid  in  stiidyina^  the  philology  of  the 
New  Testament,  in  almost  every  particular  case,  and 
in  every  individual  word. 

When,  by  such  a  course,  the  student  is  in  a  situa- 
tion to  draw  for  himself,  from  the  richest  sources,  for  a 
knowledo^e  of  the  New  Testament  language,  he  may, 
with  the  less  hesitation,  make  use  of  the  illustrations 
within  reach,  which  have  already  been  drawn  from 
other  sources  and  collected  together  in  particular  works, 
with  perfect  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  the  collect- 
ors, and  with  the  least  possible  difficulty. 

The  illustrations  referred  to  may  be  comprehended 
under  two  classes  :  those  on  the  one  hand,  which  have 
been  drawn  from  eastern  sources,  and  also  from  Jew- 
ish of  a  more  recent  date,  as  from  the  Talmud  and  the 
Rabbins ;  and  on  the  other,  those  which  are  derived 
from  classic  Greek  writers,  in  order  to  explain  the  New 
Testament  usage.  The  principal  works  of  the  most 
celebrated  scholars,  who  have  taken  the  trouble  to  col- 
lect them,  have  already  been  mentioned.  These  works 
are  not  very  numerous,  nor  are  they  very  difficult 
to  obtain  ;  and  moreover,  the  advantages  which  they 
afford,  if  a  degree  of  accurate  and  mechanical  arrange- 
ment be  employed  in  the  use  of  them,  may  be  secured 
with  an  extremely  trifling  expense  both  of  time  and 
labor. 

It  will  not  require  the  private  industry  of  a  year,  in 
order  to  extract,  as  far  as  maybe  necessary,  all  that  has 
been  collected  to  illustrate  the  New  Testament,  by 
Lightfoot  and  Schoettgen,  from  Hebrew  and  Rabbini- 
cal writers,  by  Eisner,  Raphelius,  Kypke  and  others, 
from  the  Greek  classics,  and  by  Krebs  and  others,  from 


116  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

Josephus  and  Philo.*  And  since  in  the  arrangement 
of  what  is  extracted,  it  is  evidently  most  natural  and 
convenient  to  introduce  every  thing  under  the  passages 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  are  thereby  illustrated 
or  explained,  (for  which  purpose  an  interleaved  edition 
may  be  used,)  in  a  short  time  a  treasure  of  philological 
notes  may  easily  be  laid  up.  When  this  is  done,  they 
naturally  retain  their  useful  arrangement,  are  suscepti- 
ble of  continued  augmentation  with  scarcely  any  addi- 
tional trouble,  and  even  in  interpretation  they  are  un- 
doubtedly the  most  serviceable  of  all  helps,  and  very 
frerjuently  render  all  others  superfluous. 

The  facility  with  which  this  method  of  studying 
the  philology  of  the  Greek  Testament  can  be  pursued 
may  readily  be  urged  as  the  strongest  incentive  to  re- 
commend it  to  every  one,  especially  as  it  is  the  only 
method  in  which  a  fundamental  knowledge  of  the  sub- 
ject is  to  be  attained.  It  cannot  be  objected,  that  the 
acquisition  of  such  a  knowledge  requires  too  much 
time,  which  ought  to  be  devoted  to  other  branches  of 
theology ;  on  the  contrary  it  is  evident,  that  in  the 
other  branches  of  theology,  even  in  the  most  important, 
the  advantages  of  such  a  thorough  knowledoe  of  the 
language  of  the  apostles  are  incalculable,  and  that  a 
vast  deal  more  depends  upon  it  than  upon  the  language 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

Lastly ;  with  respect  tothie  limits,  within  which  the 
study  of  sacred  criticism  may  be  restricted  without  in- 
jury, the  following  may  be  defined  as  almost  self-evi- 
dent. 

It  is  exceedingly  clear,  that  personal  application  and 

•  Note  XXXI. 


METHOD  OP  STUDY.  117 

practice  of  criticism  are  only  possible  in  the  case  of  a 
few,  because  the  helps  which  are  necessary  for  this 
purpose  can,  in  their  very  nature,  be  employed  only  by 
a  few.  We  must  consequently  be  satisfied  with  using 
the  discoveries  of  others,  which,  by  the  aid  of  some  late 
works,  can  now  be  done  with  considerable  facility. 

So  far  as  attention  to  this  subject  is  required  for  in- 
terpretation, we  may  begin  with  one  of  the  smaller 
critical  editions  of  the  Bible,  in  which  only  the  most 
important  various  readings,  or  those  of  the  most  im- 
portant places,  are  collected,  without  considering  the 
larger  works  of  Kennicott  and  De  Rossi,  or  Mill  and 
Wetstein,  to  be  necessary.  All  that  is  essential  for  this 
purpose  is,  simply  to  obtain  certain  conviction  respect- 
ing the  genuine  reading  of  those  places  which  are  ad- 
duced in  support  of  doctrine.  Here  then  it  becomes 
necessary  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  various  read- 
ings which  are  extant  of  such  places,  to  draw  them 
therefore  from  those  works  in  which  they  are  brought 
together,  at  the  same  time  observing  the  grounds  on 
which  the  value  of  each  is  determined.  These  may 
be  found  in  such  works,  for  instance,  as  Griesbach's 
New  Testament.  But  those  various  readings  of  less 
moment,  which  relate  to  places  of  no  great  consequence, 
or  do  not  at  all  affect  the  sense  of  a  text,  may  without 
disadvantage  be  passed  over  in  interpretation,  however 
important  they  may  frequently  be  for  the  critic  properly 
so  called,  who  often  finds  in  them  most  valuable  dis- 
closures respecting  the  character,  the  age,  the  derivation, 
and  the  family  likeness  of  his  manuscripts.  It  was  there 
fore  very  necessary  to  form  a  collection  of  these ;  but, 

10* 


118 


METHOD  OF  STUDY. 


by  one  who  merely  intends  to  make  use  of  criticism  in 
order  to  pave  the  way  for  the  more  sohd  interpretation, 
they  may  be  regarded  as  quite  indifferent,  and  there- 
fore he  may  without  loss  omit  the  study  of  those  larger 
works,  the  greatest  part  of  which  is  occupied  merely 
in  discoveries  of  this  nature. 

Although,  from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  the  student 
IS  thus  far  exonerated  from  the  obligation  of  a  personal 
application  to  criticism,  and  is  allowed  to  limit  his  exa- 
mination to  the  most  important  of  those  critical  trea- 
sures which  have  been  brought  to  light  by  others  ;  yet 
there  is  one  point  from  which  no  one  should  withhold 
his  attention. 

It  is  at  least  necessary  for  every  one  to  acquire  some 
personal  knowledge  of  the  way  in  which  criticism  can 
proceed  in  making  its  discoveries,  of  the  materials  with 
which  it  is  employed,  and  then  also  of  the  principles 
by  which  it  must  be  governed,  of  the  caution  that  must 
be  used,  and  of  the  errors  that  are  to  be  avoided.  For 
this  purpose,  a  foundation  must  by  all  means  be  laid  in 
some  historical  information  respecting  the  character  of 
the  sources  which  must  be  resorted  to,  the  age,  the  man- 
ner of  origin,  and  the  characteristic  properties  of  the  ma- 
nuscripts, in  which  confidence  is  chiefly  to  be  placed, 
the  most  remarkable  varieties  which  tend  to  show  their 
derivation  from  different  families  or  recensions,  and 
also  respecting  what  determines  the  value  and  the  uti- 
lity of  the  most  ancient  translations  of  the  Greek  text. 
This  previous  knowledge  will  enable  the  student  to 
deduce  for  himself  most  of  those  rules  of  criticism 
which  must   regulate    in    the    detection   of   interpo- 


METHOD  OF  STUDY.  119 

lations,  and  in  the  restoration  of  the  genuine  readings  ; 
or  certainly  to  form  a  judgment  of  his  own  with  regard 
to  their  correctness. 

Such  a  course  as  that  now  suggested  will  at  least 
place  the  student  in  a  situation,  to  examine  in  some 
measure  for  himself  the  grounds  on  which,  among  the 
various  readings  of  a  passage,  a  critic  gives  the  pre- 
ference to  any  particular  one ;  for  although  he  is 
obliged  to  rely  upon  the  historical  accounts  which  he 
receives  from  the  critic,  although  he  must  believe  on 
his  word  that  the  reading  is  to  be  found  in  this  or  that 
manuscript,  or  is  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  this  or 
that  version  ;  yet  he  can  now  form  his  own  judgment 
respecting  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  the  opi- 
nion which  had  been  drawn  from  the  data. 

These  remarks  are  sufficient  to  show,  that  every 
theologian  should  endeavor  to  obtain  at  least  as  much 
knowledge  of  criticism  as  is  necessary  for  this  purpose  ; 
and  the  ^reat  ease  with  which  this  can  be  done  adds 
weight  to  the  obligation.  In  almost  every  introduction 
to  the  New  or  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  most  of  what 
is  required  on  this  subject  may  be  found.  If  a  person 
wishes  to  go  somewhat  further  into  detail,  he  need  only 
abstract  one  or  two  of  the  treatises  on  the  principles  of 
.(criticism  which  are  introductory  to  Bengel's  Apparatus 
Criticus,  or  Griesbach's  works,  and  then  it  will  scarcely 
give  him  any  trouble,  to  add  whatever  may  from  time 
to  time  be  altered — or  perhaps  only  differently  modi- 
fied— in  the  old  principles  by  the  discovery  of  new,  or 
the  improvement  which  such  discoveries  may  have  actu- 
cilly  made. 


120  METHOD  OF  STUDY. 

The  subjects  which  have  been  stated  constitute 
those  branches  of  learning  which  are  comprehended 
in  this  work  under  the  name  of  sacred  philology  ;  and 
they  should  be  studied  in  the  manner  above  mentioned 
by  every  one  during  his  theological  course  of  three 
years,  and  in  this  manner  every  one  can  certainly 
study  them  with  advantage.  It  is  evident  that  in  such 
a  course,  success  depends  chiefly  upon  a  student's  own 
industry,  and  that  even  the  direction  of  a  teacher  is  at 
most  necessary  only  to  give  information  respecting  the 
literary  helps,  that  is,  the  works  which  must  be  used. 
But  experience  gives  still  more  certainty  than  antici- 
pation would  justify  us  in  assuming,  that  nothing  but 

PERSONAL  INDUSTRY,  DIRECTED  BY  SOME  WELL  AR- 
RANGED SYSTEM,  can  accomplish  a  vast  deal  in  this 
department  in  a  short  space  of  time. 


EXEGETICAL    THEOLOGY. 

PART  II. 


HERMENEUTICS. 

CHAPTER     I. 

The  last  branch  of  knowledge  which  belongs  to 
the  study  of  exegetical  theology,  may  very  suitably  be 
distinguished  by  the  appropriate  name  of  hermeneu- 
Tics.*  The  term  exegesis,!  taken  in  a  limited  sense, 
has  been  applied  to  it,  and  such  an  application  of  the 
word  may  easily  be  justified,  since,  according  to  the 
use  of  language,  the  very  same  thing  may  be  signified 
both  by  hermeneutics  and  exegesis.  It  may,  however, 
still  more  easily  be  shown,  that,  in  the  distribution  of 
the  various  parts  of  theology,  a  distinction  between 
these  two  should  be  observed ;  or  that  there  are  rea- 
sons for  considering  hermeneutics  as  one  species  ot 
learning,  which  indeed  belongs  to  a  course  of  exegetical 
study,  and  is  subordinate  to  exegesis. 

In  order  to  place  this  beyond  the  reach  of  doubt,  it 
is  only  necessary  to  develop  with  accuracy  the  idea 
which  the  term  expresses,  and  to  set  in  a  clear  light 
the  object  to  which  it  is  particularly  devoted. 

•  From  ^/iJiwu,  to  interpret.  Tr.     t  From  £,;'(;y£o/(a(,  to  explain.  Tr. 


122  HERMENEUTICS. 

The  general  design  of  exegetical  study,  it  is  plain, 
is  simply  this ;  to  place  us  in  such  a  situation,  that  we 
may  be  able  to  use  the  sacred  Scriptures,  wherein  the 
divine  truths  of  our  religion  must  be  contained,  as  the 
very  sources  of  those  truths,  and  from  them  derive  our 
knowledge.  Now,  after  satisfying  ourselves,  first  of 
all,  respecting  their  genuineness,  their  incorruptness, 
and  their  origin,  the  very  next  condition  which  is  re- 
quired to  understand  and  properly  to  use  those  writings 
is,  to  become  acquainted  with  the  languages  in  which 
they  were  composed.  A  previous  study  of  sacred  phi- 
lology is  therefore  necessary,  although  it  is  easy  to  see 
and  still  more  so  to  experience,  that  this  alone  is  not 
enough  to  enable  us  thoroughly  to  attain  the  design  in 
view.  Knowledge  of  the  languages  does  indeed  ap- 
pear to  lead  to  it  more  nearly  than  any  other.  In  fact, 
it  is  of  itself  sufficient,  in  many  cases,  to  make  us  ac- 
quainted with  the  true  sense  of  those  writings,  but 
not  so  in  all,  for  there  are  veiy  many  in  which  some- 
thing else  is  required. 

It  is  possible,  whatever  writing  we  may  be  exami- 
ning, very  often  to  understand  all  the  words  by  which 
a  sentiment  is  expressed,  while  at  the  same  time  we  are 
unable  to  discover  any  intelligible  sense  in  them.  And 
yet  oftener  may  we  understand  all  the  words  of  a  sen- 
tence, and  still  not  be  certain  of  the  writer's  meaning, 
because  his  words  may  admit  of  various  significations, 
and  when  taken  together  may  give  several  different 
senses.  Consequently,  certain  rules,  directions  and 
marks  are  necessary,  to  enable  us  to  ascertain  and  de- 
fine what  sense  the  author  of  a  writing  connected  with 


LAWS  OF  INTERPRETATION  NECESSARY.         123 

the  expressions  which  he  selected,  for  this  alone  can 
be  the  true  sense  of  the  writing. 

It  is  this  which  makes  hermeneiitics  a  distinct 
branch  of  learning,  and  thus  a  particular  part  of  exe- 
getical  study ;  for  it  is  this  which  makes  it  obligatory 
to  find  out,  examine  and  apply  those  rules,  aids  and  di- 
rections of  a  higher  character,  by  means  of  which  the 
true  sense  of  our  sacred  scriptures  can  without  error 
be  investigated  and  perceived. 

But  before  entering  into  the  actual  discussion  of  the 
question,  whence  herrneneutics  must  derive  these  rules 
and  directions,  and  obtain  these  aids  and  marks  to  guide 
the  inquirer,  it  may  not  be  useless  to  dwell  for  a  mo- 
ment on  a  preliminary  observation,  the  immediate  pur- 
port of  which  is  indeed  only  to  place  the  necessity  of 
this  particular  science  in  a  clearer  light,  but  which  at 
the  same  time  may  give  most  of  the  results  in  reference 
to  that  question. 

The  necessity  of  hermeneutics  is  undoubtedly 
shown  in  the  strongest  light  from  the  fact  which  expe- 
rience attests,  that  our  sacred  scriptures  not  only  can 
be  mterpreied  in  the  greatest  variety  of  manner,  but 
also  that  from  time  immemorial  they  have  been  so  in- 
terpreted. All  Christian  sects,  both  those  of  ancient 
and  those  of  modern  times,  have  always  known  how 
to  explain  scripture  in  such  a  way  as  to  elicit  their  own 
particular  opinions ;  and  since  their  opinions  are  often 
contradictory,  some  of  them  must  therefore  find  there 
the  very  opposite  views  to  those  which  meet  the  eyes 
of  others. 

Let  it  be  supposed  now,  that  each  of  these  sects 


124        LAWS  OF  INTERPRETATION  NECESSARY. 

announces  its  determination  to  proceed  according  to 
certain  hermeneutical  rules.  Although  indeed  this 
would  afford  no  favorable  presentiment  respecting  the 
confident  reliance  which  ought  to  be  placed  in  them, 
yet  it  would  be  a  strong  proof  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  establishing  such  rules  as  a  foundation  to  act  upon. 
For  whoever  is  not  conscious  of  having  conducted  his 
interpretations  according  to  such  rules,  cannot  certain- 
ly think  of  attempting  to  defend  or  to  oppose  the  cor- 
rectness of  an  exposition.  Now,  there  is  not  a  single 
one  of  those  sects  willing  to  confess,  that  they  have 
interpreted  in  a  merely  arbitrary  manner,  and  conse- 
quently every  one  of  them  does,  by  this  very  circum- 
stance, allow  the  necessity  of  hermeneutics,  but  at  the 
same  time  also  every  one  of  them  shows  very  plainly 
what  sort  of  hermeneutics  is  necessary,  or  what  kind 
of  rules  ought  to  be  established,  in  order  to  be  useful. 

We  ought,  in  one  word,  to  have  such  rules  as  both 
can  and  must  be  regarded  generally,  as  true  and  bind- 
ing. So  long  as  such  principles  are  applied  as  are  ad- 
mitted by  one  party  only  and  rejected  by  others,  it  is 
impossible  to  unite  in  the  true  meaning  of  scripture, 
because  it  is  impossible  for  the  one  party  to  convince 
the  other  of  the  truth  of  their  interpretations,  or  to 
show  the  falsehood  of  the  opposite.  But  while  this 
has  always  been  attempted  by  each,  even  from  the  ear- 
liest periods,  each  has  also  maintained,  that  its  own 
laws  of  interpretation  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  they 
ought  to  be  admitted  by  every  one,  for  on  no  other 
supposition  could  a  wish  to  make  the  attempt  occur  to 
any  one's  mind.     On  other  grounds  also  we  know  that 


LAWS  OF  INTERPRETATION  NECESSARY.         125 

each  party  is  satisfied  of  this.  Each  therefore  does 
certainly  receive  it  as  an  axiom,  that  there  are  rules  of 
interpretation,  which  are  to  be  generally  admitted  as 
true,  and  that  merely  these  and  none  others  ought  to 
be  prescribed  to  hermeneutics. 

It  might  be  foreseen  also,  that  it  must  be  very  pos- 
sible to  deceive  one's  self,  either  in  ascertaining  these 
rules,  or  in  trusting  too  much  to  their  generally  con- 
necting power,  or  even  in  the  application  of  them ;  for 
if  this  were  not  the  case,  inquirers  would  not  have 
been  able  to  discover  such  various  and  conflicting 
views  in  the  Bible.  The  true  reason  of  this  is  imme- 
diately perceived,  as  soon  as  the  source  is  named  from 
which  these  rules  must  be  drawn,  and  from  which 
alone  they  can  be  drawn.  This  source  need  no  longer 
be  sought  for ;  for  as  soon  as  it  is  admitted,  that  the 
rules  must  be  so  framed,  that  they  can  be  regarded  as 
generally  true  and  bhiding,  only  one  can  possibly  be 
recognized. 

In  a  Word,  that  which  alone  must  be  generally  re- 
spected, and  the  authority  of  which  must  be  generally 
acknowledged,  is  pure  reason ;  so  that  it  is  this  alone 
from  which  hermeneutics  can  receive  its  directions,  and 
borrow  the  respect  which  it  requires.  This  principle 
must  the  more  necessarily  be  allowed,  as  soon  as  we 
come  to  explain  what  God's  revelation,  or  what  the 
meaning  of  his  declarations,  must  be.  The  man  whom 
reason  cannot  tell,  that  such  a  sense  and  none  other 
lies  in  a  revelation,  is  not  bound  to  take  it  in  this  sense. 
If  then  it  cannot  be  proved  that  an  interpretation  of  a 
passage  in  the  Bible  is  agreeable  to  reason,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  sound  reason  can  find  no  other  sense  in  it 

U 


126  LAWS  OF  INTERPRETATION 

tlian  this,  it  ought  not  to  be  expected,  that  a  man 
should  acquiesce  in  the  interpretation.* 

The  whole  art  then,  and  the  whole  duty  of  herme- 
neutics  must  consist  simply  in  this,  to  explain  with 
reason,  that  is,  to  explain  in  such  a  manner  as  is  agree- 
able to  those  general  laws  of  nature,  according  to  which 
the  soul  of  man  must  always  govern  itself  in  fonning 
its  thoughts  and  conceptions,  in  conveying  its  concep- 
tions to  others,  and  in  receiving  those  which  others 
communicate  :  or,  in  other  words,  all  hermeneutics  can 
be  nothing  else  than  unsophisticated  logic  applied  to 
the  explanation  of  scripture. 

It  is  unnecessary  now  to  prove  this.  But  the  clear- 
er it  is  placed  before  our  eyes  and  placed  before  them 
as  incontrovertibly  true,  the  more  natural  does  the 
question  become, — whether  such  laws  of  interpretation, 
agreeable  to  reason,  do  really  offer  themselves,  and 
whether  from  the  general  natural  laws  of  thinking 
such  principles  can  be  drawn,  the  truth,  correctness 
and  applicability  of  which  can  generally  be  perceived. 

Judging  from  experience,  as  already  suggested,  it 
would  seem  scarcely  possible  that  such  principles  can 
exist,  or  else  extremely  difficult  to  discover  them ;  for 
othervv^ise,  how  could  opinions,  so  numerous,  so  diver- 
sified, and  even  in  part  so  contradictory,  be  deduced 
by  interpretation  from  the  Scriptures  ?  If  true  herme- 
neutics must  derive  its  principles  only  from  the  general 
laws  of  thinking,  or,  in  a  word,  from  logic,  hermeneu- 
tics can  be  but  one  for  all  persons,  as  is  the  case  with 
logic  and  reason.  But  then  all  persons,  by  applying 
this  one  hermeneutics,  would  necessarily  find  only  one 
♦  Note  XXXII. 


FOUNDED  ON   REASON.  127 

and  the  same  sense  in  the  Scripture,  or  it  is  clear  that 
they  could  not  conduct  their  operations  according  to 
the  same  laws.  This  appears  to  be  undeniable,  and 
therefore  it  is  at  least  no  less  so,  that  these  rules  of  a 
reasonable  hcrnieneutics,  which  are  universally  recog- 
nized as  the  true  and  only  correct  rules,  are  not  very 
readily  discoverable  ;  else,  they  would  not  have  been  so 
various  as  they  must  have  been,  if  we  may  judge  from 
the  variety  of  interpretations  which  have  resulted. 
Yet  the  phenomena,  on  which  this  conclusion  has  been 
founded,  undoubtedly  do  often  arise  from  a  cause  al- 
together dirterent  from  this  difficulty. 

The  variety  of  interpretations  and  methods  of  in- 
terpreting v/liich  in  various  ages  have  gratified  the 
fancy,  originated  much  less  frequently  from  variety  in 
the  principles  of  interpretation  themselves,  than  from 
the  various  application  which  was  made  of  them. 
There  have,  undoubtedly,  been  interpreters,  who  were 
giiided  by  principles  entirely  false  and  unreasonable, 
and  therefore  their  expositions  bear  in  the  very  face  of 
them  the  character  of  falsehood  so  remarkably,  that 
the  sound  understanding  perceives  it  at  the  first  look; 
but  still,  most  interpreters,  or  certainly  the  greater 
number,  proceeded  upon  principles  altogether  correct, 
and  ditlered  from  each  other  only  in  the  application  of 
them,  for  which  many  qualifications  are  re^ui^ite.  which 
are  not  so  easily  found  in  connexion,  because  they  can- 
not be  brought  together  without  difiiculty. 

This  will  show  itself  in  the  clearest  liffht,  when 
some  of  these  principles  of  interpretation  themselves 
are  developed,  which  simple  reason  prescribes  to  her- 


i2d 


FIRST  LAW  OF  INTERPRETATION. 


meneutics,  or  which  this  alone  derives  from  unsophis- 
ticated logic.  Those  only  which  are  of  the  most  ge- 
neral kind  can  naturally  be  selected,  and  consequently 
it  will  not  be  possible  here  to  develop  more  than  three 
or  four,  bat  these  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  most  of 
those  which  are  more  particular  in  their  character  may 
readily  be  drawn  from  them.  But  this  development 
will  most  evidently  show  with  what  ease,  on  the  one 
hand,  these  general  rules  can  be  formed,  or  at  least  be 
proved  to  human  understanding  to  be  correct  and  obli- 
gatory,— and  at  the  same  time  also,  on  the  other,  how 
much  the  application  of  them  requires  and  presumes, 
— how  easily  therefore  they  may  be  variously  apphed, 
— and  how  necessarily  this  must  produce  variety  of 
interpretation. 


CHAPTER     II. 


I.  The  first  of  all  the  laws  of  interpretation  is  cer- 
tainly this :  to  endeavor  to  investigate  the  sense  of  a 
writing  or  passage  which  is  to  be  interpreted,  according* 
to  the  signification  which  the  general  usage  of  the  lan- 
guage, or  also  the  well  known  particular  usage  of  the 
writer,  connects  with  the  words  which  he  employs. 
The  rule,  in  one  word,  amounts  to  this :  we  should 
seek,  in  the  first  place,  the  literal  sense  of  every  pas" 
sage  to  be  interpreted,  as  it  must  be  afforded  either  by 
the  general  usage,  or  by  one  which  is  peculiar  to  the 
writer.  But  why  this  must  be  sought  first,  is  a  point 
which  need  not  be  made  intelligible  to  any  one,  for 


FIRST  LAW  OF  INTERPRETATION.  129 

every  man's  natural  sense  will  tell  him,  which  will  also 
instinctively  always  bring  him  tirst  to  this  means  of 
exposition. 

It  is  indeed  natural  for  every  one  to  presume,  that 
a  man  who  intends  to  make  himself  understood  by 
another,  can  use  his  words  only  in  a  sense  which 
others  also  attach  to  them,  or,  if  he  uses  them  in  ano- 
ther sense,  can  only  use  them  in  such  an  one  as  others 
will  immediately  recognize  to  be  his.  The  reader  will 
therefore  take  his  expressions  only  in  a  signification  in 
which  every  other  man  takes  them  when  they  oc- 
cur also  elsewhere,  or  in  that  in  which  he  is  elsewhere, 
as  is  well  known,  accustomed  to  employ  them.  Let  a 
man  first  investigate  this  with  care,  and  in  most 
cases  he  will  find  very  little  more  to  be  necessary  in 
order  to  determine  the  true  sense  of  his  author. 

This  no  one  has  doubted,  and  no  one  can  doubt, 
who  is  possessed  of  a  sound  understanding.  Still, 
tliere  have  been  expositors,  as  will  be  noticed  hereafter 
in  the  history  of  this  subject,  who  have  maintained, 
that  different  principles  may  apply  to  the  Bible ;  who, 
for  this  very  reason,  do  not  deserve  to  bo  refuted.  Yet 
if  all  had  agreed  in  this — if  all  inteipreters  had  pro- 
ceeded on  this  first  law  of  exposition,  it  would  still  be 
very  easy  to  explain  how  the  greatest  variety  of  inter- 
pretations must,  notwithstanding,  be  introduced,  and 
equally  evident  is  it  whence  they  must  spring. 

In  the  application  of  this  principle  all  depends  on 
the  correctness  and  accuracy  of  our  knowledge  of  lan- 
guage, and  these  can,  must  and  will  ever  be  exceed- 
ingly various.     When  an  interpreter  understands  an 

expression  merely  according  to  the  proper,  and  not  also 
11* 


130  FIRST  LAW  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

accordina^  to  the  figurative  significations,  which  the 
usage  of  language  attaches  to  it,  what  widely  difierent 
expositions  must  he  sometimes  produce  from  the  expo- 
sition given  by  others !  Another  may  indeed  have  a 
sufficiently  full  and  correct  acquaintance  with  the  ge- 
neral usage  of  language ;  he  may  know  with  great  ac- 
curacy all  the  significations  in  which  a  word  is  gene- 
rally taken,  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  particular 
usage  of  the  writer  is  unknovv/-n  to  him  :  consequently, 
he  does  not  know  the  precise  meaning  in  which  the 
writer  is  accustomed  to  use  the  word.  How  different 
then  must  be  the  sense  which  he  finds,  from  that  which 
another  derives  by  means  of  a  nicer  knowledge  of  lan- 
guage !  And  if  again  another  explains,  according  to 
the  pure  Greek  idiom,  what  a  third  perceives  to  be  a 
peculiarity  of  the  Hellenistic  dialect,  how  remarkably 
must  their  interpretations  vary,  merely  from  this  one 
cause ! 

Scarcely  anything  but  this  single  consideration 
founded  on  fact,  that  in  difierent  periods  of  Christianity 
and  among  its  different  sects,  the  knowledge  of  lan- 
guage has  been  exceedingly  various,  is  necessary,  in 
order  to  show  most  plainly,  how,  in  different  ages  and 
among  different  sects,  such  vastly  diversified  and  in 
part  contradictory  materials  could  be  found  in  the  Bi- 
ble. All,  or  at  least  much  the  greater  number,  (for 
alas,  the  remark  is  not  true  of  all,)  had  understanding 
enough  to  discern,  that  in  explaining  Scripture  it  must 
be  the  first  care  to  vmderstand  the  sense  in  which  the 
expressions  of  the  writers  were  in  part  generally  em- 
ployed in  other  places,  and  in  part  by  themselves  in 
particular.     They  all  perceived  too,  that,  for  this  pur- 


FIRST  LAW  OP  INTERPRETATION.  131 

pose,  it  was  necessary  to  become  acquainted  both  with 
the  language  in  general,  and  witli  the  particular  usage 
of  the  writers.  Most  of  them  supposed  that  they  had 
formed  such  an  acquaintance  ;  but  how  did  this  know- 
ledge of  language  appear  in  certain  periods? 

Was  there  not  a  time,  when  it  was  thought  that 
everything  in  the  Bible  must  be  interpreted  properly,* 
because  the  figurative  language  of  the  east  was  utterly 
unknown  'l  Was  there  not  another  time,  when  expo- 
sitors would  see  no  Hebraisms  in  the  langfuaore  of  the 
New  Testament,  because  it  was  taken  for  granted,  that 
all  which  the  Holy  Spirit  communicated  by  inspiration 
to  the  apostles  must  be  pure  Greek  ?  And  was  there 
not  again  another,  and  a  long  period,  when  men  could 
find  no  other  sense  in  the  expressions  of  Scripture  but 
what  the  doctrinal  usage  of  language  belonging  to 
later  centuries  had  connected  with  them,  without  a  sus- 
picion, that  they  themselves  and  their  age  could  have 
attached  to  them  any  other  ideas  ? 

The  result  is  evident.  It  is  equally  evident  that 
such  a  result  could  not  but  take  place ;  and  moreover, 
it  is  now  evident,  and  the  reason  is  also  clear,  that  in- 
terpretation could  not  make  sure  progress,  until  sacred 
philology  was  cultivated  with  more  zeal  and  with  the  as- 
sistance of  superior  aids,  with  better  taste  and  more 
learning.  Only  the  philologist  can  be  an  in- 
terpreter. It  is  true,  that  the  office  of  interpreta- 
tion requires  more  than  mere  philology  or  an  acquaint- 
ance with  language ;  but  all  those  other  qualifications 
that  may  belong  to  it  are  useless  without  this  acquaint- 

•  Note  XXXIII 


132  SECOND  LAW  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

ance,  whilst,  on  the  contrary,  in  very  many  cases  no- 
thing more  than  this  is  necessary,  for  correct  interpr^ 
tation. 

The  trnih  of  this  observation  will  be  shown  by  the 
additional  general  laws  of  interpretation,  which  must 
now  be  adduced,  in  reference  to  those  cases,  which 
mere  knowledge  of  language  is  not  sufficient  to  explain. 

II.  The  second  general  law  of  interpretation  is  this  : 
always  to  explain  with  a  view  to  the  spirit  and  mode  of 
thinking  of  the  age  for  which  a  writing  was  immediately 
intended ;  or,  to  express  this  in  clearer  and  more  general 
terms, — that  may  always  be  considered  as  the  true 
sense  of  the  writer  to  be  explained,  which,  either  alone, 
or  at  least  as  the  most  natural  sense,  could  be  suggested 
by  his  expressions  to  the  men,  to  whom  and  for  whom 
he  wrote.* 

When  the  rule  is  expressed  in  this  form,  the  reason 
of  it  also  is  so  clearly  recognized,  that  no  development 
can  be  necessary  even  to  the  most  uneducated  man. 
Every  writer  wishes  indeed  to  be  understood  naturally. 
Consequently,  he  will  not  only  always  employ  his  ex- 
pressions in  the  sense  which  his  readers  will  connect 
with  them,  but,  in  the  ideas  which  he  communicates 
to  them,  he  will  always  be  governed  by  their  ability  to 
comprehend,  and  will  pay  regard  to  their  particular 
manner  of  forming  conceptions  of  subjects,  and  this 
either  intentionally,  or  because,  as  it  is  common  to  the 
whole  age,  it  is  also  his  own. 

When  therefore  a  reader  meets  in  a  work  with 
ideas  which  he  knows  were  in  circulation  among  those 
•  Note  XXXIV. 


SECOND  LAW  OF  INTERPRETATION.  133 

for  whom  the  work  was  intended,  and  were  circulated 
in  a  certain  definite  form;  when  lie  finds  there  not  only 
particular  words  and  phrases,  but  entire  representa- 
tions and  series  of  representations  characteristic  of  the 
age  in  which  the  work  oriijinatcd  :  he  may  confidently 
presume,  that  the  writer  whom  he  would  explain  con- 
nected therewith  the  same  sense  which  they  must  first 
present  to  his  readers,  even  if  j^rammatical  exposition 
could  discover  in  his  expressions  another  sense.  Other- 
wise, he  must  undoubtedly  have  been  misunderstood, 
had  he  in  this  way  expressed  thoughts  different  from 
those  which  his  contemporaries  would  thus  have  com- 
municated ;  and  certainly  no  rational  writer  will  ex- 
pose himself  to  unavoidable  misconception. 

We  know,  for  example,  what  idea  the  Jews  in  the 
time  of  Christ  associated  with  the  phrase,  "  kingdom  of 
heaven."  If  then  we  were  to  take  this  phrase  in  its 
grammatical  and  verbal  meaning,  we  should  most  as- 
suredly explain  it  incorrectly ;  for  we  may  with  the 
strictest  propriety,  indeed  we .  must,  assume  it  as  indis- 
putable, that  Christ  and  his  apostles  employed  it  in  the 
same  way  as  their  nation,*  for  this  plain  reason,  that 
their  nation  would  not  have  understood  them,  if  by 
this  expression  they  had  intended  to  convey  to  them  a 
difierent  idea. 

Yet  there  are  several  cases,  where  we  are  compel- 
led to  determine  the  sense  of  certain  places  of  the  Bi- 
ble, solely  from  some  local  and  temporary  opinions,  cir- 
cumstances or  prejudices  of  the  men  for  whom  they  were 
originally  written  ;  or  are  compelled,  first  to  examine 
carefully  what  ideas  these  men  could  attach  thereto ; 
•Note  XXXV. 


134  SECOND  LAW  OP  INTERPRETATION. 

since,  by  an  interpretation  merely  grammatical,  with- 
out regard  to  tliose  historical  circumstances,  no  sense 
can  be  discovered,  or  else  one  which,  on  other  grounds, 
is  plainly  perceived  to  be  erroneous.  There  are  in  the 
Gospels  themselves  several  allusions  to  national  Jev/- 
ish  opinions,  or  to  particular  sectarian  views,  especially 
tiiose  maintained  by  the  Pharisees, — to  traditions  and 
sayings  of  former  times,  preserved  among  the  people, 
—to  particular  historical  facts,  which  at  the  time  par- 
ticularly engaged  the  attention  of  the  people, — and 
even  to  proverbs  that  were  probably  in  most  frequent 
use.* 

In  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  several  places  may  be 
found,  where  he  argues  as  it  were  kuO'  'dvdputTrov,  from 
Jewish  and  Gentile  ideas  ;  and  again  there  are  others, 
where  he  draws  conclusions  entirely  according  to  the 
particular  modes  of  reasoning  pursued  by  those  with 
whom  he  had  to  do.t 

If  then  we  are  wholly  unacquainted  with  these 
points,  we  shall  find  in  most  of  these  places  either  no 
sense,  or  what  they  contain  vv^ill  be  unintelligible  to 
us,  or  we  shall  elicit  representations  which  are  so 
plainly  at  variance  with  each  other,  with  the  connex- 
ion, with  the  views  and  sentiments  of  the  writer  as 
known  to  us  from  other  sources,  that  we  must  imme- 
diately perceive  them  to  be  incorrect. 

In  such  cases,  it  is  a  real  pressure  of  necessity, 
which  imposes  on  us  the  law,  to  have  regard  in  our  in- 

"  Note  XXXVI. 
t  The  reader  will  find  some  observations  on  this  point,  and  on  the 
doctrine  of  accommodation  as  connected  with  it  in  a  subsequent 


SECOND  LAW  OF  INTEKPRETATION.  135 

terpretation  to  the  mode  of  thinking  of  the  first  read- 
ers, and  to  what  they  could  and  must  have  understood. 
Even  in  the  fact  that  such  cases  do  exist,  hes  the 
strongest  proof  that  this  must  always  be  done  naturally 
and  without  any  violence ;  and  hence  will  it  at  the 
same  time  be  most  sensibly  felt,  how  indispensable  an 
acquaintance  with  the  spirit  and  witli  the  history  of 
tlie  age  in  which  our  sacred  writings  arose,  an  ac- 
quaintance with  the  mode  of  thinking  of  the  men,  and 
hideed,  in  some  respects,  an  acquaintance  with  the  per- 
sonal circumstances  of  the  men,  for  whom  they  were 
originally  composed,  must  be,  for  a  correct  interpreta- 
tion, and  one  in  which  we  may  repose  implicit  confii- 
dence. 

But  here,  who  does  not  again  see  what  endless  va- 
riety of  interpretations  must  arise  merely  from  variety 
in  the  nature  and  compass  of  the  historical  knowledge^ 
which  the  interpreter's  resources  enable  him  to  apply 
to  exposition?  If  sound  understanding  tells  every 
man,  that  in  interpreting  he  must  place  himself  within 
the  sphere  of  the  ideas  and  vievv'^s  of  the  original  read- 
ers,— if  moreover  all  had  the  intention  to  do  thus, — and 
indeed,  if  all  had  actually  done  so,  it  could  not  readily 
have  happened,  that  all  should  have  done  so  in  an 
equal  degree.  One  interpreter,  wliose  acquaintance 
with  these  ideas  was  intimate,  must  find  them  in  many 
more  places  than  another  whose  Imowledge  of  thera 
was  only  of  a  general  nature.  And  there  have  been 
many  interpreters  who  knew  nothing  at  all  of  the  lo- 
cal and  temporary  meaning  of  certain  phrases  and  ex- 
pressions in  the  Bible ;  to  whom,  in  fact,  it  never  once 
occurred,  that  the  early   Jews   could  have   attached 


136  THIRD  LAW  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

other  ideas  to  certain  forms  of  speech  than  those  which 
the  Uteral  sense  of  the  terms  expressed,  and  who  conse- 
quently found  nothing  further  therein  but  what  was 
drawn  out  by  this  sense. 

III.  But,  along  with  this  general  rule  of  hermenen- 
tics,  a  third  must  necessarily  be  connected,  by  which  the 
application  and  the  applicability  of  the  second  receive 
some  qualifications,  without  which  indeed  it  ought  to 
be  immediately  rejected.  The  rule  is  this :  in  inter- 
preting a  writing,  constant  reference  should  be  had  to 
the  character,  views  and  known  principles  of  the  wri- 
ter, from  whom  it  originates. 

The  palpable  reason  on  which  this  rule  is  founded 
is  likewise  very  easy  to  be  perceived  by  a  mind  of 
plain,  good  .'^ense.  The  character  of  a  writer  is,  in  re- 
ality, nothing  else  than  a  combination  of  all  that  must 
mark  out  and  modify  his  particular  way  of  think- 
ing, of  treating  subjects,  and  of  expressing  him- 
self To  explain  the  opinions  and  views  of  a  writer 
from  his  character,  is  therefore  in  fact  nothing  else  than 
always  to  go  upon  the  supposition,  that  he  has  formed 
such  conceptions  as,  according  to  the  entire  situation 
and  all  the  circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  particular  education,  according  to 
his  personal  relations,  he  could  and  must  form  most 
naturally  :  and  who  will  not  always  do  this  of  his  own 
accord  ? 

It  is  also  equally  unnecessary  to  show,  why  parti- 
cular respect  must  likewise  be  paid  to  his  design,  and  to 
his  principles,  as  otherwise  understood.  This  indeed 
is  nothing  else  than  to  suppose,  that  a  man  of  under- 
standing will  not  readily  act  in  opposition  to  his  own 


THIRD  LAW  OF  INTERPRETATION.  137 

design,  will  not,  ordinarily,  easily  contradict  himself — 
will  not  without  some  evident  cause  alter  his  opinions: 
— and  who  feels  not  of  himself  the  reasonableness  and 
even  the  irresistible  force  of  this  demand? 

Very  readily,  too,  may  it  be  anticipated,  that  the  ap- 
plication of  these  rules  in  interpreting  the  Bible  in  par- 
ticular must  often  be  necessary,  and  that  very  much 
must  depend  upon  it.  Hence  also  it  is,  that  no  inter- 
preter has  ventured  to  abandon  them ;  only  the  appli- 
cation of  them  must  be  of  the  most  varied  kind,  and  of 
course  the  expositions  resulting  must  unavoidably  be 
equally  varied.  One  interpreter  may  have  formed  a 
different  view  of  the  character  of  a  sacred  writer  from 
another,  or  may  have  ascribed  to  him  a  different  de- 
sign ;  and  thus  he  would  find  in  him  ideas  altosfether 
different  from  those  which  would  be  perceived  by  the 
other,  although  both  had  been  governed  by  the  same 
principles.* 

Nothing  can  possibly  prevent  this,  but  as  extensive 
and  accurate  historical  acquaintance  as  can  be  formed 
with  all  the  personal  circumstances  of  a  writer,  and 
with  all  the  local  and  temporary  circumstances  con- 
nected with  his  writing,  united  with  a  nice  perception 
of  the  nature  and  operations  of  the  soul ;  which,  unhap- 
pily, is  not  easily  communicated,  and  is  only  to  be  com- 
prehended by  one  who  has  a  susceptibility  of  such  im- 
pressions. 

*  Note  XXXVII. 


12 


138  SCRIPTURE  TO  BE  EXPLAINED  ON  THE 


CHAPTER     III. 

These  three  general  laws  comprise  almost  all  that 
can  be  prescribed  to  hermeneutics.  Whatever  particn- 
lar  rules  may  still  further  be  imposed,  may  at  least  with 
great  propriety  be  drawn  from  them,  or  have  their 
foundation  in  them.  But  if  this  be  really  so,  who 
does  not  perceive,  that  sacred  hermeneutics,  or  the  art 
of  expounding  the  Bible,  may  well  be  said  to  have  no 
rules  whatever,  which  are  peculiar  to  itself?  If  these 
are  the  three  great  principles,  on  which  we  must  pro- 
ceed in  interpreting  our  sacred  scriptures,  it  is  evident 
that  we  must  act  in  relation  to  the  Bible  just  as  in  re- 
lation to  every  other  writing,  must  bring  out  its  true 
meaning  precisely  by  the  same  means  as  we  would  ap- 
ply to  any  other  book ;  in  a  word,  in  explaining  the 
Bible,  we  must  do  the  very  same  thing  which  sound 
understanding  and  rational  (which  is  also  natural,)  lo- 
gic always  require  to  be  done,  in  explaining  every 
other  book  in  the  world. 

This  is  most  undoubtedly  the  fact,  and  the  correct- 
ness of  this  position  may  even  be  proved  with  irresisti- 
ble evidence.  It  was  the  most  extraordinary  of  all  pre- 
judices, which,  in  former  ages,  led  to  its  denial,  or  at 
least  prevented  it  from  being  openly  asserted  ;  for  not 
only  is  there  no  reason  or  circumstance  that  can  be  ad- 
duced to  show  the  possibility  of  the  contrary,  but  it 
may  be  proved  on  the  strongest  ground  a  priori,  that 
the  fact  could  not  possibly  be  otherwise. 

Even  the  particular  connexion  which  it  may  have 
with  the  inspiration  of  our  sacred  scriptures,  the  very 


SAME  PRINCIPLKS  AS  OTHER  BOOKS.  139 

l^jciiliarity  wliich  they  may  thereby  receive,  and  the 
characteristic  features  whereby  this  may  distinguish 
them,  not  only  can  cause  no  difference  in  interpreting 
them,  and  in  the  principles  or  helps  which  must  be  ap- 
plied in  order  to  investigate  and  in  general  to  ascertain 
their  meaning,  but  it  binds  us  yet  the  firmer  to  those 
principles,  and  secures  to  us  with  the  more  certainty 
the  result,  which  we  may  promise  ourselves,  from  the 
application  of  these  natural  means. 

The  more  certain  it  is  that  these  writings  originated 
from  God.  the  more  thoroughly  we  may  be  convinced 
tliat  it  is  he  who  has  inspired  the  authors  with  their 
contents,  the  more  clear  and  definite  our  ideas  respect- 
ing the  manner  of  this  inspiration  may  become,  the 
stronger  must  be  our  obligation,  or  the  stronger  must 
we  feel  it  to  be.  to  interpret  them  according  to  the  rules 
which  we  would  apply  to  every  other  book  intended 
for  man's  use ;  for  God  cannot  have  announced  him- 
self to  men  in  any  other  way  than  that  which  is  adapt- 
ed to  men.  And  the  more  certainly  may  we  also  ex- 
pect, by  the  aid  of  these  general  rules  correctly  ap- 
plied, to  discover  with  satisfactory  confidence  the  true 
sense  of  scripture ;  which  is  not  always  the  case  with 
regard  to  a  human  writing.  The  ground  of  all  those 
rules,  the  ground  of  the  wliole  system  of  hermeneu- 
tics,  rests  solely  and  entirely  on  the  supposition,  that 
the  author  of  a  writing  has  thought  according  to  the 
same  laws,  according  to  the  same  mode  of  reasoning, 
and  also  in  the  same  order  as  other  reasonable  men. 
In  human  writings  this  supposition  may  not  unfre- 
quently  be  erroneous ;  for  it  is  not  every  writer,  who 
has  always  thought  according  to  a  correct  mode  of 


140 


DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION. 


reasoning,  and  in  a  natural  order.  But  as  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  tliis  can  be  the  case  with  inspired  writings,  it 
is  impossible  that  the  principles  of  interpretation  which 
are  founded  thereon,  should  ever  lead  us  astray  when 
applied  to  these  writings. 

But,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  the  limits  of  inspi- 
ration, and  this  difficulty  is  increased  in  proportion  as 
we  run  out  into  particulars.  In  our  own  time,  there- 
fore, the  extraordinary  apprehension,  which  once  pre- 
vailed, with  regard  to  the  principle,  that  it  is  necessary 
to  interpret  the  Bible  like  any  human  book,  is  almost 
entirely  abandoned.  There  is  one  particular  point, 
however,  with  respect  to  which  an  exception  is  consi- 
dered as  necessary,  and  this  has  arisen  from  the  some- 
what doubtful  use  which  has  been  made  of  it  by  cer- 
tain modern  interpreters.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to 
add  here  a  few  remarks  in  relation  to  it,  for  the  point 
is  one  of  gi'eat  consequence,  on  which  very  much  in- 
deed depends ;  and  it  is  an  important  point,  which,  al- 
though first  agitated  in  our  own  day,  has  already  in 
many  instances,  and  certainly  in  some  not  without  de- 
sign, been  involved  in  confusion.* 

In  connexion  with  the  second  law  of  hermeneu- 
tics  above  stated,  by  which  every  book  should  be  ex- 
plained according  to  the  spirit,  the  mode  of  thinking, 
and  the  views  formed  by  those  for  whom  it  was  imme- 
diately written,  the  question  occurs :  does  this  extend 
to  erroneous,  and  incorrect  representations  of  the  age 
which  gave  birth  to  our  sacred  scriptures  ?  or,  in  other 
words,  is  it  to  be  presumed,  that  the  authors  of  our  sa- 
cred scriptures  did  themselves  entertain  the  unfounded 
t  Note  XXXVIII. 


DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION.  141 

prejudices  of  their  contemporaries,  or  at  least  have  oc- 
casionally been  governed  thereby,  have  brought  them- 
selves down,  and,  to  express  myself  in  the  usual  phra- 
seology, have  accommodated  themselves  to  these  pre- 
judices? 

It  is  easy  to  perceive  how  much  depends  on  this 
question,  for  it  were  easy  to  anticipate,  (and  in  our  own 
time  this  has  been  brought  home  to  us  by  experience.) 
what  exceedingly  diversified  systems  of  doctrine  may 
thus  be  framed,  as  the  one  or  the  other  principle  in- 
volved in  the  question  is  applied  to  interpretation.  And 
on  this  account,  the  opposers  of  this  accommodation, 
that  is,  of  the  opinion,  that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles 
were  occasionally  influenced  by  the  erroneous  views 
of  their  day,  have  been  so  earnest  on  the  point,  that 
their  zeal  seems  to  have  led  them  somewhat  farther 
than  was  necessary,  and  probably  indeed  somewhat 
farther  than  wisdom  would  have  dictated.  They  have 
sometimes  attempted  to  deny,  what  it  is  clear  cannot 
be  denied  ;  while  they  should  have  satisfied  themselves 
with  insisting  on  some  limitations,  which  proceed  so 
evidently  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  that  their 
validity  and  correctness  cannot  possibly  be  doubted. 

The  following  observations  in  relation  to  this  mat- 
ter may  be  sufiicient  to  set  it  in  its  true  light.  They 
do  not  indeed  by  any  means  exhaust  the  subject,  but 
they  touch  upon  the  principal  points,  which  it  is  im- 
portant to  notice  in  defining  this  question  and  in  deci- 
ding upon  its  merits  ;  and  thus,  inasmuch  as  this  is  not 
the  proper  place  for  a  full  development,  they  may  at 
least  obviate  some  part  of  the  mischief  which  might 
12* 


142  DOCTRINE  OP  ACCOMMODATION. 

arise  from  a  distorted,  half  true,  or  partial  representa- 
tion.* 

I.  In  the  first  place,  no  one  need  be  alarmed,  if 
he  should  hear  it  maintained,  that  in  our  holy  scrip- 
tures, as  well  those  of  the  New  as  those  of  the  Old 
Testament,  passages  occasionally  occur,  in  which  the 
authors,  in  which  even  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  ac- 
commodate to  the  views  of  their  contemporaries,  and 
in  fact  when  those  views  are  erroneous.  The  idea 
from  which,  whether  clearly  or  imperfectly  conceived, 
such  alarm  may  originate,  and  in  some  instances 
has  originated,  namely,  that  the  sentiment  is  in  the 
highest  degree  unworthy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom 
those  writings  were  inspired,  can  never  in  a  general 
point  of  view  justify  him,  for  in  general  it  is  incorrect. 
If  it  be  not  unworthy  of  a  wise  instructor,  to  bring  him- 
self down  to  the  childlike  conceptions  of  his  pupils ;  it 
cannot  be  unworthy  of  God,  if,  in  the  instructions 
which  he  communicated  to  men,  he  should  occasion- 
ally have  done  the  same  thing,  in  order  to  make  the 
truths  which,  at  the  same  time,  he  wished  to  convey  to 
them,  the  more  easily  intelligible. 

Every  shadow  of  indecorum  is  entirely  removed,  by 
restricting  the  application  of  this  principle  to  such 
cases,  as  do  not  come  within  the  sphere  of  those  views, 
which,  according  to  the  divine  intention,  are  to  be  com- 
municated only  by  a  particular  revelation,  and  thus,  in 
a  word,  merely  to  those  things  which,  properly  speak- 
ing, do  not  belong  to  religious  truths.  For,  in  order 
to  find  in  it  any  thing  objectionable  and  improper,  we 
must  either  assume,  that  God  must  have  instructed 
•  Note  XXXIX. 


DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION. 


143 


men  respecting  everything  without  exception  on  which 
they  entertained  incorrect  sentiments  ;  or,  that  he  must 
at  least  have  expressed  himself  correctly  on  all  those 
subjects  respecting  which  their  ideas  were  erroneous, 
even  with  the  danger  of  being  unintelligible  to  them. 

It  is  evident,  for  histance,  that  if  the  sacred  wri- 
ters, or  the  Holy  Spirit  who  inspired  them,  had  used 
perfectly  correct  language  in  reference  to  some  points 
in  their  time  generally  misunderstood,  for  example,  in 
reference  to  some  natural  phenomena,  the  true  causes  of 
which  the  Imowledge  of  philosophy  then  prevailing 
was  incompetent  to  explain ;  either  they  could  not 
have  been  understood  by  their  contemporaries,  or  else  to 
these  a  new  system  of  natural  philosophy  must  have 
been  revealed.  But  if  the  one  would  have  been  sense- 
less and  the  other  without  an  object,  as  every  one  will 
immediately  perceive,  what  remains  but  to  allow  that 
God  must  have  come  down  to  the  erroneous  ideas  of 
these  men,  in  order  to  make  those  correct  views  which 
were  to  be  communicated  to  them,  in  part  more  intel- 
ligible, and  in  part  more  impressive. 

It  is  certainly  then  not  necessary  to  deny  that  the 
sacred  writers  have  done  this,  and  that  the  prophets  in 
the  Old  Testament  as  the  apostles  in  the  New  have 
sometimes  accommodated  themselves  to  incorrect  views 
of  the  people,  to  opinions  generally  prevailing  in  their 
time.  What  then  should  prevent  us  from  acknowledg- 
ing, that  the  prophets  and  apostles  did  not  merely  ac- 
commodate to  these  views,  but  that  they  themselves 
also,  at  least  some  among  them,  did  participate  in  them 
in  common  with  their  contemporaries  ? 


144  DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION. 

Their  inspiration,  whatever  ideas  may  be  formed 
respecting  it,  and  how  far  soever  it  may  be  extended, 
cannot  possibly  prove  anything  to  the  contrary,  for  it 
can  in  no  way  be  injured  by  it.  We  cannot  surely 
suppose,  that  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament  were 
of  themselves  so  far  in  advance  of  their  own  age.  as  to 
have  always  possessed,  on  points  not  connected  with 
religion,  sounder,  clearer  and  more  refined  ideas  than 
their  contemporaries  ?  In  that  case  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  suppose,  that  the  power  of  inspiration  was  gov- 
erned in  its  operations  by  the  ability  of  the  men  on  whom 
it  acted  to  comprehend,  as  our  Lord  so  evidently  was 
in  the  oral  instruction  which  he  imparted  to  his  disci- 
ples. They  were  not  taught  all  things  at  once,  they 
were  not  at  once  freed  from  all  their  prejudices.  Why 
then,  notwithstanding  their  inspiration,  may  not  traces 
of  these  be  still  found  in  their  writings  ? 

But  it  is  unnecessary  to  ask,  whether  this  may  be 
supposed,  since  it  is  impossible  not  to  see  that  the  fact 
is  really  so.  It  cannot,  by  any  construction  but  the 
most  unnatural,  be  concealed,  that  our  sacred  writers, 
and  even  Christ  himself  and  his  apostles,  did  occa- 
sionally direct  their  instructions  in  reference  to  imper- 
fect views  current  in  their  age,  and  even  to  views  not 
strictly  correct ;  and  as  little  can  it  be  concealed, 
that  the  latter,  the  apostles,  sometimes  brought  forward 
these  views  as  their  own,  which  most  probably  they 
held  in  common  with  their  age. 

To  prove  this  it  is  not  necessary  to  resort  to  exam- 
ples taken  from  the  Old  Testament.  Are  there  not  in 
the  discourses  of  our  Lord  himself  instances  of  the 
first  which  are  altogether  irresistible,  and  with  regard 


DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION.  145 

to  tlie  last,  have  we  not  the  most  definite  testimonies  of 
tiie  apostles  themselves? 

For  example,  when  Jesus  says  to  the  Jews,  in  Matt, 
xii.  27  :  "if  I,  according  to  your  charge,  cast  out  the 
demons  through  Beelzebub,  through  whom  do  your 
sons  cast  them  out  ?"  it  is  quite  evident,  that  he  rea- 
sons from  the  common  opinion  entertained  by  the 
Jews,  as  if  the  exorcists,  who  abounded  among  them, 
did  really  possess  and  exercise  the  power  of  expelling 
demons.  But  who  supposes,  that  any  real  truth  lies 
at  the  bottom  of  this  common  conceit  ?  And  in  the 
same  conversation,  when  in  v.  44,  45,  he  speaks  of  a 
demon  going  out  of  a  man,  wandering  in  waste  and 
dry  places,  and  afterwards  taking  along  with  him 
seven  others,  and  again  returning  to  his  old  habitation, 
it  is  abundantly  evident,  that  he  took  all  these  particu- 
lars from  the  Jewish  doctrine  respecting  demons, 
whicli,  as  we  learn  from  the  apocryphal  book  of  To- 
bit,  ch.  viii,  had  long  been  received  among  them :  and 
who  can  persuade  himself  to  admit  these  particulars 
as  truths  of  the  world  of  spirits  authenticated  and  es- 
tablished by  him?  And  when  in  John  iii.  8,  he  says 
to  Nicodemus,  respecting  the  wind,  "thou  canst  not 
tell  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth,"  it  cannot 
be  doubted,  that  the  very  inadequate,  imperfect  and  er- 
roneous acquaintance  with  the  operations  of  nature 
which  then  prevailed  in  his  nation  is  assumed  as  the 
standard. 

It  were  easy  to  adduce  more  instances  to  the  same 
purpose,  but  these  are  quite  sufficient  to  show  (at  least 
in  general)  beyond  all  doubt,  that  there  are  places  in 
the  New  Testament,  where  our  Lord  accommodates 


146        DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION. 

his  teaching  or  language  to  the  prevalent  erroneous 
views.  That  the  apostles  themselves  cherished  some 
of  these  errors,  requires  no  further  proof  than  what  is 
afforded  by  their  history  and  education,  as  delineated 
in  their  own  writings.  It  is  only  necessary  to  consi- 
der, who  these  men  were,  previously  to  their  becoming 
associated  with  Christ  and  under  his  particular  direc- 
tion. We  may  see  even  in  their  history,  how  much 
national  prepossession,  how^  many  opinions  entertained 
by  the  people  generally,  how  many  incorrect  views, 
were  held  by  them,  even  after  they  had  enjoyed  his  in- 
structions during  three  years.  We  need  only  weigh 
this  fact,  how  long,  even  after  the  death  of  our  Lord 
and  the  eifusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  continued  to 
cling  to  their  expectation  of  an  earthly  reign  of  the 
Messiah,  to  their  attachment  to  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Levitical  law,  to  their  Jewish  peculiarities,  and  we 
sliall  find  reason  to  believe,  that,  in  other  points,  on 
which  their  master,  agreeably  to  his  design,  had  im- 
parted to  them  no  particular  information,  their  concep- 
tions were  not  clearer  than  those  of  their  age  and  na- 
tion. We  are  not  only  authorized,  but  we  are  obliged 
to  suppose,  that,  in  points  which  have  no  connex- 
ion WITH  RELIGION,  the  apostles  thought  for  the 
most  part,  with  their  age.  Consequently,  it  follows, 
as  a  fundamental  rule  of  hermeneutics,  that  in  inter- 
preting their  writings,  careful  attention  must  be  paid 
to  this. 


LIMITATIONS  OF  ACCOMMODATION.  1^7 


C  II  A  P  T  E  R.      I   V. 

ToGETHEii  With  tliese  fundanieiilal  rules,  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  connect  two  others,  which  spring  immedi- 
ately from  them,  and  alone  determine  their  applicabili- 
ty, as  they  must  always  lead  us  in  making  use  of  them. 
The  first,  their  applicability,  receives  thereby  some  li- 
mitations, which  are  sufficient  to  remove  all  solicitude 
from  the  mind  of  the  most  anxious  interpreter,  while 
they  are  so  firmly  settled  in  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
that  the  most  liberal  cannot  possibly  avoid  acknow- 
ledging tVieir  claims. 

II.  Whatever  reasons  there  may  be  for  supposing 
that  our  sacred  writers  have  occasionally  expressed 
themselves  according  to  the  views  of  their  age,  and 
even  when  these  views  were  unfounded,  yet,  in  the 
SECOND  PLACE,  this  is  ucvcr  to  be  assumed  in  any  par- 
ticular instance,  unless  supported  by  clear  and  proper 
signs  that  such  is  the  fact.  In  other  words,  it  is  never 
justifiable,  on  the  principles  of  hermeneutics,  to  apply 
the  doctrine  of  accommodation  to  any  passage,  unless 
it  can  be  historically  shown,  tliat  the  passage  does  re- 
ally contain  an  opinion  prevalent  at  the  time,  and,  far- 
ther still,  vuiless  it  can  be  proved  from  internal  evi- 
dence, that  this  prevalent  opinion  is  erroneous.  The 
justice  of  these  requisitions  every  man  of  sound  un- 
derstanding can  easily  be  made  to  feel,  if  he  has  no  in- 
terested motive  to  induce  him  to  avoid  their  force. 
Whenever  a  writer's  declaration  is  said  to  be  accom- 
modated, it  is  also  necessarily  implied,  that  nothing 
really  true  is  contained  in  it.     But,  in  relation  to  every 


148  LIMITATIONS  OF  THE 

writer,  it  is  proper  to  require  sufficient  evidence  of 
this,  and,  in  relation  to  our  sacred  writers,  doubly  suf- 
ficient ;  otherwise,  truly,  it  would  be  very  easy  to  ex- 
plain away  whatever  a  man  finds  in  the  Bible  which 
is  disagreeable  to  him.  Those  persons  who  are  not 
satisfied  with  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
need  only  have  said  from  the  earliest  ages, — 'it  was  a 
national  idea  of  the  Jews,  to  conceive  of  their  Messiah 
as  invested  with  the  splendor  of  the  Deity,  as  a  person 
in  whom  resided  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Godhead, 
and  according  to  this  idea  is  he  represented,  by  the 
apostles.'  The  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment might  have  spared  themselves  many  very  violent 
operations,  which,  in  former  times,  they  directed 
against  several  of  those  passages  of  scripture  that  treat 
of  this  subject,  if  the  discovery  had  been  made  at  an 
earlier  period  that  all  those  passages  must  be  illustrated 
from  Jewish  views  relative  to  sacrifice,  from  the 
shackles  of  which  the  apostles  or  first  Christians  could 
not  at  once  free  themselves.  With  the  very  same  fa- 
cility, all  other  positive  doctrines  of  Christianity,  which 
may  be  regarded  as  ofiensive,  may  and  must  be  re- 
moved from  the  New  Testament,  as  soon  as  a  man  al- 
lows himself,  without  further  proof,  to  consider  every- 
thing that  shocks  his  prejudices  as  merely  current  opi- 
nion of  the  Jews.  But  does  not  now  every  man's 
common  sense  and  feeling  teach  him  that  the  very  le- 
vity and  trifling  of  such  a  procedure  afford  the  strong- 
est ground  for  concluding,  that,  in  cases  of  this  kind, 
it  is  an  indispensable  duty  to  allege  proof? 

Here  it  must  be  particularly  borne  in  mind,  that  it 
is  by  no  means  sufiicient  to  be  able  to  show,  that  cer- 


DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION,  149 

tain  representations  found  in  the  Bible,  were  views  of 
the  age  in  which  the  authors  hved,  or  of  the  people 
among  whom  they  had  constant  intercourse ;  it  is  ne- 
cessary also  to  be  able  to  prove  their  incorrectness,  be- 
fore a  man  should  allow  himself  to  find  an  accommo- 
dation in  the  passages  in  which  they  occur. 

Will  we,  for  example,  represent  the  declarations  of 
the  apostles  respecting  the  atoning  efficacy  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  as  mere  allusions  to  Jewish  sacrificial  views, 
which  are  therefore  not  to  be  understood  literally?  It 
is  then  incumbent  on  us,  not  only  to  show,  that  the 
Jews  really  had  such  sacrificial  views,  but  also  to  prove 
that  they  are  really  puerile  ideas,  in  which  no  truth 
lies  at  the  bottom.  Will  we — to  adduce  another  illus- 
tration— will  we  maintain,  that  from  all  those  places 
in  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  speak  of  demons,  no- 
thing at  all  can  be  inferred  in  favor  of  the  real  exist- 
ence of  such  kind  of  spiritual  beings,  because,  in  such 
cases,  they  have  merely  spoken  according  to  the  con- 
ceit of  their  age  1  It  is  certainly  then  not  enough  to 
have  shown,  that  a  general  belief  in  demons  did  then 
prevail,  but  it  must  also  be  shown,  that  this  belief  of 
the  age  was  a  mere  superstition,  an  erroneous,  false, 
and  groundless  conceit  of  the  people. 

The  cause  which  makes  it  proper  and  necessary  to 
insist  on  this,  is  self-evident.  An  opinion  is  not  al- 
ways and  necessarily  erroneous  because  it  is  popular. 
Among  the  views  prevalent  in  an  age  and  the  stock  of 
ideas  circulating  in  a  nation,  there  may  be  some  inter- 
mingled that  arc  true.  Our  Lord  therefore  and  his 
apostles  may  have  been  governed  by  certain  opinions 

of  their  time,  not  merely  because  they  were  opinions 

13 


150  LIMITATIONS  OF  THE 

of  their  time,  but  because,  according  to  their  own  con- 
victions, the  views  which  they  afforded  were  true,  cor- 
rect and  well  founded.  Thus,  he  may  have  spoken  so 
often  of  demons,  not  merely  because  the  people  be- 
lieved in  their  existence,  but  because  he  believed  in  it 
himself;  and  therefore  it  is  possible,  that  he  has  not,  in 
this  matter,  accommodated  to  the  popular  ideas,  and  it 
must  therefore  be  allowed  to  be  possible,  that  by  his 
declarations  he  has  himself  attested  their  existence,  and 
that  it  was  his  intention  to  attest  it. 

Undoubtedly  there  may  be  cases  in  which  the  proof 
above  spoken  of  may  be  dispensed  with,  because  it 
would  be  unnecessary  and  superfluous  to  adduce  it ; 
(of  such  cases  I  shall  speak  further  presently,)  but  in 
others  again  we  can  demand  of  the  interpreter  to  bring 
the  proof  from  internal  grounds.  As  it  is  often  easy 
to  foresee  the  impossibility  of  satisfying  this  demand, 
its  severity  is  proportionably  the  more  evident.  Who 
will  undertake  to  show  on  internal  grounds,  that  no 
beino"  can  exist  of  such  a  nature  as  the  Jews,  in  the 
time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  formed  in  their  mind 
vinder  the  name  of  angels  and  demons  ;  or  that  the  fu- 
ture resurrection  of  the  dead,  which  the  Jews  must 
have  expected  from  their  Messiah,  and  the  apostles 
certainly  did  expect  from  Christ,  can  never  take  place? 
Most  undoubtedly,  the  fact,  that  the  Jews  believed  the 
one  and  the  other,  involves  no  reason  why  we  should 
also  admit  them.  Nothing  but  the  certainty  that  they 
had  been  instructed  in  them  by  a  divine  revelation  can 
make  them  obligatory  on  us  ;  and  hence  it  might  ap- 
pear to  be  sufficient,  if,  in  relation  to  points  of  this 
kind,  it  were  barely  stated,  that  respecting  them  we  are 


DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION.  151 

destitute  of  certainty.  Yet,  when  the  theologian,  who 
intends  to  form  a  system  the  parts  of  which  are  pro- 
perly connected  insists  upon  this,  that  the  testimony  of 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles  must  sufficiently  supply 
this  want,  or  rather,  give  to  us  this  certainty  ;  when  he 
urges  this  consideration,  that  these  views  of  the  Jewish 
people,  which  it  is  freely  granted  no  evidence  either 
external  or  internal  could  otherwise  make  credible  to 
us,  have  been  established  by  the  authority  of  Christ, 
and  on  this  accomit  alone  must  be  admitted  by  us  eis 
true,  since  we  are  as  little  able  on  internal  grounds  to 
reject  as  to  admit  them  ;  what  will  the  interpreter  al- 
lege on  the  other  hand  ?  He  will  not  venture  to  say 
to  him  again,  that  Christ,  by  apparently  establishing 
this  idea  of  the  people,  has  merely  come  down  to  the 
prejudices  of  his  age,  for  this  is  the  very  point  which 
his  opponent  denies.  And  how  can  he  oblige  him  to 
concede  it,  but  by  proving  to  him,  that  in  such  decla- 
rations of  Christ  an  accommodation  must  necessarily 
l>e  admitted,  because  the  opinions  apparently  establish- 
ed by  him  are  of  such  a  kind,  that  it  is  impossible  he 
could  have  really  intended  to  establish  them ;  that  is  in 
one  word,  by  showing  him,  on  internal  grounds,  the 
incorrectness  of  the  opinions  ? 

Thus  is  it  certain  beyond  all  doubt,  that,  in  some 
cases  at  least,  an  accommodation  never  can  with  per- 
fect security  be  admitted,  since  it  cannot  be  previously 
determined,  that  the  representation,  in  reference  to 
which  the  accommodation  is  to  be  applied,  was  both 
an  opinion,  really  prevailing  at  the  time,  and  also  an  er- 
roneous opinion.  But  now  it  were  easy  to  anticipate 
from  this,  how  much  the  principle  of  accommodation,  by 


152  LIMITATIONS  OF  THE 

this  single  demand,  must  lose  of  the  dangerous  charac- 
ter which  at  first  view  it  would  seem  to  possess.  It 
may  be  confidently  said,  that  there  are  not  many  cases 
in  relation  to  which  those  necessary  previous  proofs 
can  be  brought  with  suitable  point,  unless  a  man  will 
help  or  rather  deceive  himself  with  mere  conjectures. 
This  last  has,  in  fact,  already  been  done  among  us 
often  enough,  since  it  has  been  regarded  as  the  proper 
business  of  a  newly  invented  higher  criticism,  to 
trace  out,  by  the  aid  of  the  history  and  spirit  of  the 
age  from  which  our  sacred  scriptures  have  come  down 
to  us,  whatever  may  have  been  merely  the  common 
sentiments  of  the  times.  Yet,  as  it  is  easy  to  see,  that 
this  higher  criticism,  however  good  may  be  the  inten- 
tion of  its  advocates,  but  too  often  can  produce  nothing 
better  than  conjectures,  since  so  few  historical  monu- 
ments of  that  age  remain;  so  is  it  also  easy  to  per- 
ceive, that  from  the  nature  of  the  subject  mere  conjec- 
ture can  determine  nothing  in  relation  to  it,  or  can  only 
determine  with  an  interpreter,  whose  inclination  to  de- 
termine has  already  been  formed.  Only  let  the  prin- 
ciple above  stated  be  assumed  and  applied,  and  no  one 
need  apprehend,  that  the  method  of  interpretation  un- 
der review  can  easily  be  abused  to  the  injury  of  reli- 
gion. 

III.  Yet  all  the  doubt,  which  would  seem  to  attach 
to  this  point,  is  removed  by  subjecting  it,  in  the  third 
PLACE,  to  a  farther  limitation,  the  reasonableness  of 
which  is  also  as  evident  to  common  sense  as  the  pre- 
ceding. 

It  may  indeed  be  supposed,  that  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles  were  sometimes  influenced  by  the  erroneous 


DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION. 


153 


views  of  their  ao-e,  but — this  is  the  limitation — it  must 
not  be  supposed  any  farther  than  is  consistent  with 
their  character,  their  design,  and  also  their  views, 
either  as  declared  by  themselves,  or  otherwise  known 
with  certainty.  It  has  already  been  stated,  as  one  of 
the  fundamental  rules  of  hermeneutics,  that,  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  eveiy  writing,  constant  reference  must 
be  had  to  the  character  and  intention  of  the  writer. 
The  present  limitation  can  therefore  in  reality  add  no- 
thing more  than  this,  that  in  no  case  should  these 
rules  be  at  all  transgressed ;  but  the  claim  to  this  re- 
quisition is  certainly  as  evident  in  the  cases  where  an 
interpretation  founded  on  accommodation,  and  one  co- 
incident with  the  design  or  character  of  the  writer, 
appear  to  come  into  collision,  as  it  is  in  all  others. 

But  we  must  suppose,  and  we  are  justiiied  in  sup- 
posing, that  an  intelligent  teacher  or  writer  will  never 
come  down  to  the  erroneous  views  of  the  men  for 
whom  he  is  laboring,  below  what  is  not  derogatory  to 
his  character  and  opposed  to  his  design.  As  often 
therefore  as  it  can  be  shown,  that  by  an  assertion  or 
declaration  he  would  have  injured  the  one  or  the  other, 
if  he  had  been  governed  in  making  it  by  a  condescend- 
ing adaptation  to  error,  it  is  necessary  to  maintain, 
that  no  accommodation,  but  a  real  declaration  of  his 
own  convictions  is  to  be  found  there. 

With  respect  to  this  fundamental  limitation  itself, 
we  shall  not  be  required  to  contend  with  any  one  ;  but 
on  the  other  hand,  we  must  acknowledge,  that  it  is  not 
very  easy  to  lay  down  general  fixed  principles,  accord- 
ing to  which  it  may  always  be  infallibly  determined, 
whether  such  an  economical  method  of  interpretation  is 
13* 


154  LIMITATIONS  OF  THE 

consistent  or  not  with  the  character  and  design  of  a 
writer.  Probably  indeed  none  can  be  given,  whicVi  do 
not  admit  and  require  in  particular  cases  some  excep- 
tions, limitations  and  modifications,  arising  from  the 
character  of  the  particular  case.  It  is  necessary,  there- 
fore, almost  in  every  individual  instance,  to  form  a 
judgment  for  one's  self :  indeed,  in  some  of  those  cases 
which  relate  to  determining  the  '1605,  or  the  agreement 
of  an  alleged  accommodation  with  the  character  of  the 
writer,  the  moral  feeling  of  the  interpreter  will  always 
claim  an  influence,  which  cannot  be  made  uniform  by 
any  rules.*  These  difficulties  apply,  in  a  full  degree, 
to  our  sacred  writers,  and  even  to  the  declarations  of 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles  ;  for  the  most  natural  rule  to 
decide  by  which  is  applicable  to  them,  that  which  arises 
from  their  entirely  peculiar  character,  cannot  itself  be 
actually  applied  half  so  easily  as  at  first  view  might  be 
supposed.  This  rule  seems  to  result  from  the  most 
natural  supposition,  that  Christ  and  his  apostles,  at  the 
least  in  whatever  belonged  to  the  religious  instruction 
which  they  intended  to  impart  to  the  world,  never  could 
accommodate  to  the  views  of  their  age,  because  this 
would  have  been  in  direct  opposition  to  their  design. 
But  who  does  not  feel,  that  closer  and  more  accurate 
fiixed  principles  are  necessary,  respecting  what  must 
belong  to  that  religious  instruction,  and  that  a  man 
must,  above  all  things,  be  thoroughly  satisfied  with 
these  principles,  before  he  can  with  complete  confi- 
dence apply  the  rules  which  are  founded  on  them. 

What  has  been  said  may  serve  to  mark  out  the  chief 
points  at  least,  on  the  accurate  determination  and  ad- 

•  Note  XL. 


DOCTRINE  OF  ACCOMMODATION.  155 

justment  of  which  still  depend  the  laws,  by  which  her- 
meneutics  must  be  governed  in  such  conflicting  cases,  in 
fact,  on  which  alone  it  can  be  governed  with  certainty.* 


CHAPTER      V. 

The  history  of  this  branch  of  knowledge,  and  of 
the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  treated  from  the  ear- 
liest ages,  may  very  well  be  comprised  in  a  short  com- 
pass. But  this  is  not  the  case  with  its  literature,  which 
is  exceedingly  rich.  Still,  a  preliminary  sketch  of  its 
history,  although  short,  will  be  of  use  in  order  to  faci- 
litate a  choice  among  the  principal  literary  works  be- 
longing to  this  department,  which,  in  a  treatise  of  this 
kind,  it  is  necessary  to  give. 

The  history  of  hermeneutics  may  most  suitably  be 
divided  into  seven  periods  of  time,  which  although 
of  very  unequal  lengths  are  yet  distinguished  by  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation  peculiar  to  each,  or  at  least 
by  appropriate  methods  of  exposition  very  observa- 
bly varying  from  the  others.  The  characteristic 
traits  of  these  methods  and  of  these  principles,  impress 
upon  the  exegetical  works  which  we  have  of  each  of 
these  periods,  such  marks  of  discrimination  not  to  be 
misunderstood,  that,  with  regard  to  most  of  theni,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  inquire  after  any  other  marks  in  order 
to  ascertain  the  time  to  which  they  belong. 

I.  In  the  first  two  centuries  it  was  hardly  possible  for 
the  church  to  have  any  other  principles  of  exposition  than 
those  which  the  early  Christians  had  in  part  brought  over 

•  Note  XLI. 


156  HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

with  them  from  Judaism,  and  in  part  received  from  the 
Jews.  Those  Christians  who  were  properly  Jewish 
could  have  no  other  ;  and  those  who  were  converted 
to  Christianity  from  Heathenism  could  not  think  of 
originating  others  for  themselves,  for  as  along  with  the 
Christian  religion  they  received  the  holy  scriptures  of 
the  Jews,  it  was  natural  that  they  should  consider  it  as 
incumbent  on  them  to  receive  also  the  principles,  ac- 
cording to  which  they  had  hitherto  been  explained  by 
the  Jews  and  their  teachers.  These  principles  are 
very  well  known.  They  amount  to  this  :  that  although 
the  words  of  scripture  are  to  be  explained  according 
to  the  usage  of  language,  yet  frequently  their  gramma- 
tical sense  is  the  least  important,  and  that  almost  all 
that  they  contain  is  allegory,  or  type,  or  prophecy. 

Many  circumstances  conspired  to  encourage  the 
early  fathers,  who  were  possessed  of  some  learning, 
to  adopt  this  extraordinary  method  of  interpretation. 
They  saw  that  even  the  apostle  Paul,  in  some  of  his 
epistles,  where  he  was  obliged  to  contend  with  Jewish 
Christians,  had  availed  himself  of  it,  as,  for  instance, 
in  that  to  the  Galatians,  and  thus  they  considered 
themselves  as  sufficiently  authorized,  not  attending  to 
the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  the  apostle  was 
placed,  and  to  the  particular  object  which  he  had  in 
view.  They  were  themselves  incompetent  to  discover 
a  better  method  of  interpretation,  because  the  greatest 
part  of  them  were  altogether  unacquainted  with  the 
Hebrew  language.  But  what  principally  recommend- 
ed this  method  to  them  was,  that,  in  contending  with 
the  opponents  of  Christianity  among  the  Jews,  they 
were  able  to  derive  from  it  most  important  advantage 


HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS.  157 

for  their  opinions.  By  the  aid  which  it  afforded  they 
were  able  to  point  out  to  the  Jews,  a  muhitude  of  pro- 
phecies in  the  Old  Testament  relating  to  Christ,  the 
literal  accomplishment  of  which  could  be  shown  with- 
out any  trouble,  to  illustrate  a  multitude  of  types  in  it, 
the  corresponding  antitypes  to  which  were  to  be  found 
without  difficulty  in  his  history.  It  was  therefore  no 
wonder,  that  Justin  Martyr,  Irensus,  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  were  so  much  captivated  by  this  mode  of 
exposition,  as  not  only  not  to  observe  how  insecure, 
unsteady  and  deceptive  it  is,  but  to  find  in  it  their  chief 
advantages.* 

II.  But,  in  the  commencement  of  the  third  century, 
a  happier  period  for  hermeneutics  was  introduced  by 
Origen,  not  so  much  by  giving  his  contemporaries  rules 
for  an  improved  interpretation,  as  by  exhibiting  to  them 
an  example  of  improvement.  It  was,  of  course,  im- 
possible even  for  Origen  at  once  to  break  loose  from 
the  old  allegorizing  method  of  interpretation.  His 
acuteness  and  perspicacity  pointed  out  to  him  in  the 
Bible  frequent  allegories  and  types,  which  no  man  be- 
fore him  had  discovered.  He  also  sometimes  inten- 
tionally availed  himself  of  this  allegorical  method  of 
mterpretation,  in  order  to  oppose  with  the  more  effect 
certain  crude  opinions  of  liis  age,  founded  on  an  inter- 
pretation entirely  literal ;  as,  for  example,  the  gross  re- 
presentation of  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh  and  an  earthly 
reign  of  Christ  during  a  thousand  years,  which  in  the 
second  century  was  extensively  prevalent.!  Some  of 
his  pupils  and  admirers  afterwards  carried  this  point 
still  further;  and  hence  it  was,  that,  subsequently, 
•Note  XLII.  t  NoteXLIII. 


158  HISTORY  OP  HERMENEUTICS. 

when  errors  and  heresies  began  to  be  discovered  in 
the  writings  of  this  most  extraordinary  man,  he  was 
subjected  to  the  reproach  of  having  been  the  inventor, 
or  at  least  the  greatest  promoter  of  the  allegorizing  sys- 
tem of  interpretation. 

But  this  reproach  is  in  a  high  degree  unmerited. 
If  even  Origen  could  not  altogether  free  himself  from  the 
tendency  of  his  age,  yet  it  was  this  very  man,  who  often 
enough  and  pointedly  enough  insisted,  that  interpreta- 
tion should  always  be  founded  on  the  grammatical  sense 
of  the  words ;  that  in  ascertaining  this  sense,  the  usage 
of  language  should  always  first  be  consulted  ;  and  that, 
until  this  can  afford  no  suitable  meaning,  entirely  cor- 
responding with  the  connexion  and  views  of  the  wri- 
ter, or  in  unison  with  his  declarations  as  elsewhere  ex- 
pressed, no  allegorical,  typical  or  spiritual  signification 
can  properly  be  resorted  to.  He  it  was,  who  pointed 
out  to  his  contemporaries  the  method  of  correcting  the 
grammatical  and  historical  sense  of  scripture  with  a 
typical  and  allegorical  one  ;  a  method,  which  undoubt- 
edly was  afterwards  much  abused.  By  these  means 
he  taught  them  most  impressively,  that  acquaintance 
with  language  and  with  history  is  necessary  in  every 
case  in  order  to  secure  a  correct  interpretation,  and  by 
these  means  alone  did  he  perform  a  service  with  regard 
to  hermeneutics,  which  entitled  him  to  the  thanks  of 
all  succeeding  ages.* 

III.  In  the  period  immediately  subsequent  to  that 
of  Origen,  the  effects  of  his  example  became  ver^'  evi- 
dent ;  for  in  the  fourth  century  interpretation  assumed 
a  form  greatly  improved.     This  state  of  things  was 
•  Note  XLIV. 


HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS.  169 

chiefly  owing  to  the  fact,  that  now  there  were  more  in- 
terpreters, who  had  formed  their  taste  by  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  works  of  the  old  Greek  and  Roman  au- 
thors, and  the  effect  which  the  studies  of  them  produced 
on  their  mental  character,  they  were  not  able  entirely 
to  keep  out  of  view,  however  willingly  they  would 
often  have  done  so,  in  commenting  on  the  Bible.  This 
was  the  case  with  Eusebius,  Chrysostom,  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  and  Theodoret,  among 
the  Greek  interpreters  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 
and  with  Jerome,  Augustin,  Pelagius  and  Cassian 
among  the  Latins.  It  is  true,  that  in  these  authors  we 
do  often  enough  meet  with  allegorical  and  mystical  ex- 
positions ;  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  impossible  not  to 
perceive,  that  they  were  influenced  by  a  feeling,  which 
always  brought  them  back  again  to  a  more  intelligent 
method  of  interpretation. 

Many  of  them,  as  Chrysostom,  Theodore  and  Au- 
gustin, felt  also,  that  it  was  sometimes  necessary  to 
lay  down  as  the  ground  of  grammatical  interpre- 
tation, a  particular  usage  of  language  belonging  to 
the  sacred  writers  ;  they  had  even  an  indistinct  im- 
pression that  the  particular  spirit  of  the  age  of  these 
writers  must  be  regarded  ;  and  they  were  not  afraid 
in  many  cases  to  proceed  upon  the  supposition,  that 
by  a  judicious  accommodation  they  had  occasionally 
come  down  even  to  the  erroneous  views  of  their  own 
time. 

We  not  unfrequently  find  therefore  in  the  exegeti- 
cal  works  of  these  fathers  interpretations  of  the  most 
excellent  and  striking  character,  and  it  is  to  be  ascribed 
to  two  causes  only  that  they  are  not  to  be  found  there 


160  HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

in  greater  abundance.  The  one  is,  their  very  great 
want  of  acquaintance  with  the  spirit  of  the  old  lan- 
guages of  the  east,  a  defect,  which  must  have  a  most 
injurious  influence  on  their  interpretations  not  only  of 
the  Old  Testament,  but  also  of  the  New.  The  other 
cause  is  to  be  found  in  the  unhappy  controversies, 
which  were  carried  on  during  those  periods,  in  such 
vexatious  number,  and  with  such  scandalous  warmth. 
In  these  cases,  it  became  too  much  the  practice,  to  al- 
low themselves  to  modify  their  interpretation  accord- 
ing to  the  convenience  of  their  polemics ;  that  is  to 
say,  to  explain  the  Bible  in  such  a  manner  as  was  best 
adapted  to  advance  the  interest  of  the  various  opinions 
which  they  defended.  Even  the  best  and  most  acute 
writers  among  the  fathers  of  those  times,  as  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  (for  the  polemic  authors,  Jerome  and 
Augustin,  are  quite  out  of  the  question,)  could  not 
entirely  guard  against  the  fault  of  sometimes  finding 
in  the  Bible  merely  what  would  serve  to  support  their 
opinions,  and  of  finding  it  there  simply  because  they 
required  it  for  that  purpose :  an  evil,  which  in  the  fol- 
lowingr  asfes  became  still  worse. 

IV.  It  may  be  said  with  truth,  that  the  whole  peri- 
od from  the  seventh  to  the  sixteenth  century  was  des- 
titute of  hermeneutics,  merely  for  this  reason,  that  it 
was  by  the  polemics  of  the  times  completely  subjected 
to  the  yoke  of  doctrinal  divinity.  The  truths,  which 
it  was  thought  proper  to  find  in  the  Bible,  were  now 
brought  into  a  system,  which  the  church  by  her  autho- 
rity and  influence  had  frequently  declared  to  be  the 
only  true  one.  No  man  therefore  ventured  to  find  any 
thing  further  in  the  Bible,  which  was  not  adapted  to 


HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS  161 

this  system,  and  still  less  any  thinp;  which  stood  in  op- 
position to  it. 

In  these  circumstances,  it  mig-ht  be  considered  the 
wisest  course  that  could  be  adopted,  to  abandon  all  idea 
of  originality,  and  be  contented  with  collecting  the  in- 
terpretations of  the  ancient  fathers,  on  which  the  church 
had  impressed  the  stamp  of  orthodoxy ;  and  then  it 
could  not  be  long-,  until  circumstances  became  such, 
as  to  make  this  abandonment  absolutely  necessary,  be- 
cause all  ability  and  all  helps  for  original  interpretation 
were  lost. 

In  the  ninth  century  all  knowledge  of  history  and 
languages  had  almost  entirely  vanished.  The  barba- 
rous Vulgate  gradually  became  elevated  to  the  impor- 
tance of  the  only  text,  and  the  glossa  ordinaria  to  the 
character  of  the  only  commentary  on  the  Bible,  which 
was  used  and  allowed  to  be  used  in  the  church  ;  be- 
cause these  were  the  only  text  and  commentary  that 
could  be  used.  And  even  in  the  use  of  the  Vulofate, 
not  only  was  no  oflfence  taken  at  the  prodigious  multi- 
tude of  the  grossest  errors  which  had  crept  into  it,  but 
it  was  appealed  to  in  argument  and  interpretation,  Mnth 
as  much  confidence,  as  could  ever  have  been  placed  in 
the  original  text  itself 

Neither  did  the  scholastic  age,  which  immediately 
followed  this,  introduce  a  more  favoralile  change  for 
hermeneutics  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  rather  to  be  said, 
that  its  fate  became  thereby  the  more  unfortunate. 
The  scholastics,  indeed,  were  a  class  of  men,  who  at 
first  gave  themselves  but  little  trouble  on  this  point,  for 
to  them  it  was  not  a  matter  of  much  consequence, 
14 


162 


HISTORY  OP  HERMENEUTICS. 


whether  they  could  prove  their  opinions  from  scripture 
or  not,  since  they  were  persuaded  that  the  truth  of  them 
could  be  demonstrated  from  the  principles  of  their  phi- 
losophy. However,  towards  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
century,  some  extraneous  circumstances  led  them  to 
pay  more  attention  to  the  scriptures  than  they  had  for- 
merly done,  and  consequently  they  were  obhged  to  go 
farther  into  the  subject  of  interpretation. 

Hence  there  arose  successively  many  sects,  who 
wished  to  draw  the  Bible  from  that  total  oblivion  into 
which  it  had  sunk,  and  who  were  willing  to  find  things 
in  it  quite  different  from  what  had  hitherto  been  usu- 
ally dictated  to  the  people,  and  what  they  had  been  ac- 
customed to  hear.  Beside  these,  since  the  time  of 
saint  Bernard,  an  important  party  had  been  formed  in 
opposition  to  the  new  scholastic  divines,  which,  al- 
though soon  oppressed  by  them,  were  not  completely 
put  down,  but  continued  to  maintain  an  influence  prin- 
cipally in  the  monasteries,  and  on  many  occasions 
withstood  them  with  great  earnestness,  which  produced 
a  correspondent  impression.  These  denominated  them- 
selves the  party  of  the  biblical  divines.  They  assumed 
a  degree  of  importance,  as  if  they  were  the  more  tena- 
cious of  adhering  to  the  scriptures,  in  proportion  as 
the  others  seemed  to  disregard  them.  They  were  the 
principal  agents  in  bringing  back  again  the  mystical 
method  of  interpretation,  in  order  to  make  themselves 
conspicuous  in  some  way,  and  by  these  means  they 
frequently  acquired  a  consideration,  which  threatened 
to  be  dangerous  to  the  scholastics.  These  theologians, 
therefore,  were  themselves  reduced  to  the  necessity  of 


HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS.  163 

comins:  down  to  interpretation,  which,  at  the  same  time, 
was  subjected  to  the  most  lamentable  treatment  it  had 
ever  experienced. 

Equally  incompetent  to  discover  as  to  apply  the 
simple  and  natural  principles  of  an  intelligent  herme- 
neutics,  they  returned  to  the  allegorizing  system,  which 
they  pursued  with  far  more  extravagance  than  it  had 
ever  been  pursued  by  the  Jews.  Whatever  the  wildest 
imagination  and  the  most  unnatural  force  could  press 
out  of  a  word  of  scripture,  was  given  as  the  genuine 
meaning,  witiiout  the  least  regard  to  connexion,  design, 
character  of  the  writer,  and  coherence  of  his  ideas ; 
and  for  the  most  part  adopted  the  more  willingly  in 
proportion  as  it  was  senseless  and  irrational.  But  in 
truth  they  could  not  easily  produce  any  other  result, 
whenever  they  attempted  to  expound  for  themselves  ; 
since  they  had  no  knowledge  of  languages,  no  appre- 
hension of  a  historical  sense  of  scripture,  and  not  the 
most  distant  idea  of  a  spirit  peculiar  to  the  age  in  which 
the  scriptures  originated.  Still,  in  fact,  this  injurious 
treatment  did  not  affect  the  scripture  itself,  but  only  the 
Vulgate ;  for  it  was  only  to  this  version  that  they  were 
able  to  apply  their  efforts  of  interpretation,  and  there- 
fore the  mischief  was  not  so  particularly  great. 

V.  Yet,  before  Luther  made  his  appearance,  some 
minds  of  the  higher  order  were  desirous  of  putting  a 
stop  to  this  confusion,  and  therefore  occasional  exam- 
ples occur  of  a  method  of  interpretation,  less  offensive 
to  sound  understanding.  But  the  influence  of  these 
persons  was  not  greatly  efficacious  until  that  impetu- 
osity of  character,  by  which  this  reformer  was  led  to 


164  HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

the  improvement  of  so  many  other  things,  was  also  di- 
rected to  this  subject,  and  broke  through  the  obstacles 
that  opposed  him.  After  Erasmus  and  some  other  men 
of  the  same  class,  he  and  Melancthon  were  the  resto- 
rers of  hermeneutics  ;  and  this  effect  was  produced 
principally  by  again  bringing  forward  the  grammatical 
system  of  interpretation,  by  re-establishing  the  literal 
sense  in  its  rights,  by  granting  anew  to  the  usage  of 
language  its  paramount  importance,  and  by  not  grant- 
ing, or  at  least  not  seeking,  either  mystical  or  allegori- 
cal significations,  whenever  the  other  would  aftbrd  a 
consistent  sense,  and  one  adapted  to  the  views  of  the 
writer. 

Thus  the  way  to  a  rational  interpretation  was  re- 
opened. But  it  was  necessary  to  set  out  entirely  afresh, 
and  therefore  it  became  somewhat  tedious,  and  the  fatal 
impediment,  which  in  the  fourth  century  had  arrested 
the  progress  of  the  understanding  in  pursuing  this 
course,  again  but  too  soon  presented  itself.  Luther 
was  forced  to  form  his  new  system  of  interpretation 
amidst  noisy  controversies  ;  he  became  forced  thereto 
by  the  very  controversies  in  which  he  was  himself  en- 
gaged ;  and  therefore  it  was  natural  enough  that  he 
should  occasionally  apply  it  in  favor  of  them,  although 
in  other  circumstances  he  would  have  regarded  tliis  as 
an  abuse.  This  most  excellent  man  did,  in  fact,  very 
often  direct  his  interpretation  merely  with  a  view  to  his 
polemics  :  but  this  was  done  by  his  immediate  succeS' 
sors  ;  it  was  done  by  those  divines,  who,  after  his  death 
and  that  of  Melancthon,  constituted  the  ruling  party  in 
the  Lutheran  church,  so  much  more  frequently,  that 


HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS.  165 

this  may  be  given  as  the  discriminating  character  of 
our  hermeneutics  from  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century 
to  the  beginning  of  our  own. 

Amidst  the  hottest  internal  controversies,  the  Lu- 
theran system  of  doctrine  was  fully  completed  in  the 
form  of  concord.  This  system  necessarily  possessed 
its  own  interpretation  ;  and  as,  by  the  general  union 
in  one  symbol  wherein  it  was  contained,  tlie  system  it- 
self became  firmly  established  as  unalterable,  so  also 
was  of  course  that  interpretation.  Every  dictimi  pro- 
bans  by  which  a  point  in  the  form  of  concord  had  been 
proved  or  was  thought  to  have  been  proved,  must  now 
always  be  so  explained  as  to  remain  useful  in  reference 
to  this  proof;  otherwise  the  prevailing  theology  would 
inmiediately  complain  of  a  departure  from  the  system 
of  doctrine. 

Along  with  this,  however,  ii  must  be  said,  that  the 
interpretation  always  proceeded  on  the  correct  princi- 
ple, that  the  literal  and  grammatical  sense  must  first 
be  investigated,  and  that  this  must  be  determined  by 
the  usage  of  languaofe.  This  was  the  point  to  which 
chief  attention  was  always  directed ;  but  this  usage, 
instead  of  being  derived  from  the  sources  which  alone 
can  afford  it  with  any  certainty,  from  other  contempo- 
raneous writers,  from  the  spirit  of  the  time  or  from  the 
spirit  of  the  kindred  languages,  from  the  characteristic 
formation  of  mind  and  mode  of  thinking  of  the  different 
sacred  writers  themselves,  and  from  comparing  their 
works  together,  was  derived  merely  from  the  uncertain, 
second  hand  source  of  doctrinal  divinity.  That  is,  all 
expressions  were  taken  merely  in  the  sense  in  which 
this  privileged  divinity  had  taken  them,  tliis  was  pre- 
14* 


166  HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

sumed  to  be  the  only  true  sense,  and  then,  as  was  natu- 
ral, the  same  sense  was  always  found  m  every  place 
which  this  divinity  had  found  there. 

The  impropriety  and  mischief  of  this  method  could 
certainly  be  the  less  observed,  while  so  little  refined 
and  accurate  knowledge  of  languages  was  possessed, 
with  only  here  and  there  obscure  impressions  of  a  his- 
toric sense  ;  in  truth,  attachment  to  the  doctrinal  the- 
ology even  prevented  the  exegetical  from  being  able  to 
strengthen  those  impressions,  and  from  using  all  its  ef- 
forts to  advance  such  a  nice  and  thorough  knowledge. 
When  therefore,  towards  the  middle  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, Cocceius,  among  the  reformed  divines,  again  at- 
tempted to  find  every  where  in  the  Bible  allegories, 
types,  tropes  and  prophecies,  many  of  our  divines  zea- 
lously opposed  the  novelty ;  but  when,  almost  at  the 
same  time,  Grotius  and  some  other  men  of  refined  taste 
and  more  enlarged  views  attempted,  by  penetrating  more 
deeply  into  the  spirit  of  the  languages  and  history  of  the 
times  of  our  sacred  writers,  to  withdraw  interpretation 
from  the  authority  of  doctrinal  divinity,  a  violent  outcry 
was  raised  against  them,  and  for  more  than  half  a  cen- 
tury laborious  efforts  were  made  to  hinder  the  diffusion 
of  the  light,  which  these  men  had  thus  enkindled.* 

VI.  Hermeneutics  experienced  yet  another  change, 
which  at  one  time  gave  it  a  new  distinguishing  feature, 
but  which  happily  it  did  not  long  retain.  With  the 
commencement  of  our  century,  the  newly  rising  party, 
called  pietists,  began  to  devote  themselves  particularly 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  because  they  consi- 

*  The  reader  is  requested  to  peruse,  in  connexion  with  these  re- 
marks of  the  author,  the  latter  part  of  Note  XI.  Tr. 


HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS.  167 

dered  it  as  necessary,  and  certainly  not  without  reason, 
to  revive  a  zeal  for  the  study  of  it,  which  had  become 
very  greatly  diminished.  But,  unhappily,  this  party 
brought  rather  too  much  enthusiasm  and  too  little 
learning  to  this  subject,  and  this  would  necessarily  im- 
part to  their  method  of  interpretation  a  peculiar  charac- 
ter. This  consisted  in  pressing  each  word  of  the  text, 
until  every  idea,  which  by  mere  possibility  it  might 
contain  accorduig  to  its  etymology,  was  forced  out ; 
for,  by  this  operation,  the  'prsBgnantes  sensus  scripturse,' 
to  use  their  own  language,  and  the  holy  emphasis  of 
its  expressions,  which  had  heretofore  been  neglected, 
could  alone  be  received  in  all  their  fulness. 

Had  this  been  done  according  to  a  reasonable  me- 
thod, some  real  gain  might  perhaps  have  resulted  ;  but 
from  that  which  was  generally  pursued,  any  advantage 
could,  in  the  nature  of  things,  but  very  seldom  be  ob- 
tained :  and,  in  truth,  the  effect  must  often  have  been 
injurious.  These  expositors  might  have  endeavored, 
and  sometimes  with  the  hope  of  a  very  happy  result, 
to  determine  the  whole  extent  and  the  full  emphasis  of 
an  idea  involved  in  any  word  or  turn  of  expression 
from  the  general  or  particular  usage  of  language  in  the 
Bible,  from  which  alone  confident  conclusions  could  be 
drawn.  But,  instead  of  this,  they  generally  adhered 
merely  to  the  etymological  or  grammatical  connexion, 
from  which  they  deduced  the  strangest  conclusions  : 
without  reflecting,  that,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  the 
conventional,  and  the  particular  usage  of  the  sacred 
writers,  could  not  have  been  so  accurately  directed 
either  by  etymology  or  grammar. 

If,  for  example,  the  apostles,  by  a  Hebraism,  had 


168  HISTORY  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

used,  iv  insteadof^a,  if  they  had  written,  "in  the  name 
of  Jesus,"  instead  of,  "  throuafh  the  name  of  Jesus"; 
a  pecuhar  emphasis  was  supposed  to  he  in  the  particle 
tv,  expressly  intended  by  the  apostle,  because  if  this 
were  not  the  case  he  could  as  well  have  employed  the 
word  &ia.  When  St.  Paul  says  of  Christ  that  he  is 
UepixpwMi,  (Phil.  ii.  9,)  the  term  must  express  much 
more  than  the  idea  of  Christ's  exaltation  in  general,  for 
otherwise  the  apostle  would  not  have  added  force  to 
the  verb  v^/ooi  by  compounding  it  with  the  preposition 
i^tp.  But  that  the  first  instance  is  nothing  but  a  He- 
braism, and  that  with  respect  to  the  other,  it  was  a 
very  common  usage  with  the  Greeks,  to  employ  such 
compound  words  interchangeably  with  the  simple,  and 
in  the  very  same  sense  with  them,  these  sticklers  for 
emphatic  phraseology  would  by  no  means  allow,  be- 
cause such  a  concession  would  completely  demolish 
the  whole  foundation  of  their  emphasis.  This  extrava- 
gant trifling  could  not  long  continue,  and  indeed  it 
would  scarcely  have  lasted  to  the  middle  of  our  own 
age,  had  it  not  been  for  a  time  assisted  by  the  counte- 
nance of  some  men,  who  in  other  respects  were  very 
reasonable  and  deservedly  esteemed,  as,  for  instance,  the 
pious  and  learned  Bengel.  Yet  this  system  was  the 
sooner  dissipated,  when  some  other  divines  of  decided 
reputation,  as  Ernesti,  announced  themselves  in  oppo- 
sition to  it.* 

VII.  Through  the  efforts  of  these  men,  and  espe- 
cially of  the  last  named  scholar,  hermeneutics  came  in 
the  end  to  the  form  in  which  it  is  at  present ;  or  rather, 
it  received  the  principal  characteristics  of  which  it 
may  now  boast. 

Note  XLV. 


HISTORY    OF    HERMENEUTICS.  169 

It  may  with  propriety  be  said  of  it,  that,  in  the 
present  day,  by  means  of  a  nicer  and  more  fundamen- 
tal knowledo^e  of  language,  it  can  acquire  much  greater 
certainty  respecting  the  grammatical  sense  of  scripture, 
and  by  means  of  more  enlarged  literary  investigations, 
can  throw  much  clearer  light  on  the  historical  sense 
than  formerly  ;  that,  at  the  same  time,  it  has  laid  aside 
the  prejudice,  which  liad  previously  restrained  it  from 
paying  sufficient  attention  to  the  spirit  of  the  age  for 
which  those  writings  were  immediately  intended ;  and 
that,  in  fine,  it  has  seized  and  applied  this  same  spirit 
in  a  degree  far  beyond  what  could  possibly  have  been 
done  in  its  earlier  periods. 

It  may  therefore  be  given  as  the  distinguishing 
characteristic  of  the  interpretation  of  our  own  time, 
that  it  proceeds  on  the  principle  that  each  sacred  wri- 
ter thinks  and  speaks  according  to  the  spirit  of  his  age, 
and  consequently  must  be  explained  according  to 
that  spirit.*  This  may  also  without  hesitation  be 
given  as  its  chief  advantage ;  although  it  cannot 
at  the  same  time  be  denied,  that  this  principle  has 
been  occasionally  carried  too  far,  and  that  conse- 
quently injurious  effects  have  now  and  then  resulted. 
Such  effects  are  principally  to  be  apprehended,  from 
the  facility  with  which  it  might  so  often  be  erroneously 
assumed,  that  the  sacred  writers,  in  many  of  their  de- 
clarations, in  which  the  older  theology  found  positive 
doctrines  have  been  governed  merely  by  views  of  their 

*  C.  A.  G.  Keil  :  de  historica  librorum  sacrorum  intcrpretatione 
ejusque  necessitate,  Lips.  17H8,4to  ;  translated  into  German  l)y  C.  A. 
Wempel,  Leipz.  ITiKi,  8vo. — The  reader  is  requested  to  keep  in  mind 
the  limitations  already  laid  down,  in  order  to  qualify  the  application 
of  this  principle.  Tr. 


170 


HISTORY    OF    HERMENEUTICS. 


own  age.*  It  may  also  be  a  more  unfavorable  cir- 
cumstance, that  no  settled  principles  have  yet  been 
agreed  on,  whereby  to  define  the  bounds  of  this  accom- 
modating method  of  interpretation,  although  the  sub- 
ject had  been  warmly  discussed  for  twenty  years,  when 
Semler  gave  new  life  to  the  excitement  in  relation  to 
the  scriptural  doctrine  respecting  demons,  and  began 
by  his  'cEconomicum  dicendi  genus'  to  explain  it 
away.  But  notwithstanding  this,  we  may  probably 
anticipate  more  benefit  hereafter,  than  we  need  fear 
disadvantage.  It  was  not  altogether  unnatural  that 
interpretation,  in  the  first  joy  that  it  experienced  in 
being  freed  from  the  fetters  of  doctrinal  divinity  which 
it  had  so  long  carried,  should,  with  the  feehngs  which 
this  must  excite,  have  gone  somewhat  further  than  ne- 
cessity or  propriety  justified  ;  but,  for  this  very  reason, 
it  may  be  hoped  with  the  more  probability,  that  in 
time  it  will  of  itself  become  right ;  and  then  even  doc- 
trinal divinity  will  undoubtedly  derive  the  greatest 
advantages.! 


CHAPTER    VI. 

After  this  brief  history  of  interpretation,  which 
gives  a  view  of  the  most  remarkable  changes  it  has 
undergone,  I  proceed  to  make  a  statement  of  the  most 
useful  works  in  this  department,  and  which  in  each  of 

•  Note  XLVI. 

t  The  concluding  remarksof  this  chapter  on  the  influence  which 
the  principle*  of  Kant's  philosophy  might  have  in  producing  mya- 
tical  and  allegorical  interpretations,  are  omitted. 


WORKS  ON  INTERPRETATION.  171 

the  periods  noticed  have  been  principally  used.  To 
express  an  opinion  respecting  the  particular  character 
of  these  works,  and  to  estimate  their  relative  value, 
must  be  unnecessary ;  for  a  mere  statement  of  the  pe- 
riods to  which  they  belong,  or  from  which  they  have 
originated,  is,  in  some  degree,  sufficient  for  this  purpose. 

The  works  themselves  must  be  divided  into  two 
classes,  to  the  former  of  which  are  to  be  appropriated 
those  which  contain  proper  directions  relating  to  her- 
meneutics,  which  develop  and  exhibit  the  rules  and 
principles  of  a  correct  method  of  interpretation,  or  in 
which  they  are  individually  and  particularly  marked 
out  and  illustrated,  in  their  application  to  all  the  books 
of  our  sacred  scriptures,  or  again  only  to  a  limited 
immber. 

The  second  class  will  comprise  the  most  remarkable 
and  useful  of  those  writings,  in  which  these  principles 
are  actually  applied  to  the  interpretation  either  of  the 
whole  Bible  or  of  particular  books ;  in  other  words, 
our  principal  commentaries,  expositions,  paraphrases, 
(fcc,  of  every  age,  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

I.  With  respect  to  the  first  class  of  these  literary 
productions,  no  man  will  expect  to  find,  in  the  early 
and  middle  ages,  any  work  in  which  hermeneutics  is 
reduced  to  the  form  of  a  distinct  branch  of  knowledge, 
and  the  theory  of  it  drawn  out  in  what  may  be  called 
a  philosophical  manner.  Of  the  period  of  the  fathers, 
properly  so  termed,  there  are  scarcely  two  works  of 
this  kind,  which  can  with  propriety  be  here  intro- 
duced, and  of  the  following,  not  a  single  one. 

In  the  four  books  of  Augustin '  de  doctrina  Christia- 
na,' we  not  only  find  some  scattered  observations,  which 


172  WORKS  ox  INTERPRETATION. 

look  like  directions  for  a  correct  interpretation  of  scrip- 
ture, but  in  Lib.  iii.  cap.  30,  he  has  introduced  the 
seven  rules,  so  called,  for  investigating  and  ascertaining 
the  sense  of  scripture,  'regulae  ad  investigandum  et 
inveniendam  scripturarum  intelligentiam,'  which  are 
the  production  of  a  contemporaneous  writer  of  the 
name  of  Ticonius,  of  whom  we  have  no  further  know- 
ledge. These  rules  do  not  exhibit  much  penetration, 
although  they  show  the  author  to  have  possessed  ex- 
traordinary ingenuity. 

Another  work  belonging  to  this  period,  which  has 
equal  claims  to  notice  in  this  review,  is  a  composition 
under  the  ^^title,  Ewayoiyfi  Us  raj  ecias  ypa4>as,  '  lutroductlon 
to  sacred  scripture,'  by  a  writer  of  the  name  of 
Adrian,  who  was  probably  contemporaneous  with 
Augustin,  although  the  age  in  which  he  lived  cannot 
be  accurately  determined.*  But  there  is  no  reason  to 
place,  as  is  usually  done,  among  the  list  of  writers  on 
theoretical  hermeneutics,  Eucherius,  bishop  of  Ly- 
ons, in  Gaul  in  the  fifth  century,  on  account  of  his  '  In- 
structio  ad  filium  Salonium,'  '•  Instruction  addressed  to 
his  son  Salonius,'  which  has  come  down  to  us  in  two 
books  ;  for  this  '  Instruction'  does  not  contain,  properly 
speaking,  any  directions  for  the  interpretation  of  scrip- 
ture. The  first  book  merely  illustrates  some  difficult 
passages,  and  the  second  explains  the  Hebrew  names 
which  occur  in  the  Bible. 

From  this  time  we  find,  in  the  literary  history  of  her- 
meneutics, a  space  of  one  thousand  years,  which  presents 

*  This  Introduction,  with  some  other  writings  of  the  same  kind, 
was  published  in  Greek  by  David  HoESCHEi-.at  Augsburg,  in  1G02, 
4to.  It  has  also  been  introduced  in  the  Critici  Sacri,  Tom.  viii,  of 
the  London  edition. 


WORKS  ON  INTERPRETATION.  173 

nothina:  but  a  mere  blank,  for  not  until  the  latter  half 
of  the  sixteenth  century  do  we  meet  with  any  true  and 
scientific  directions  for  correct  interpretation ;  and,  in 
fact,  the  work  which  contains  them  may,  without  hesi- 
tation, be  regarded  as  the  first  of  this  class.  The  book 
referred  to  is  Clavis  scripturas  sacrae,  the  '  Key  to  the 
sacred  scripture,'  of  the  celebrated  Matthias  Fla- 
cius,  which  came  out  originally  at  Basle,  in  folio,  in 
the  year  1567.*  The  first  part,  of  which  this  Clavis 
consists,  may  be  called  a  biblical  lexicon,  for  most  of 
the  words  and  phrases  occurring  in  scripture  are  ex- 
plained in  it  in  alphabetical  order.  But  the  second 
is  actually  and  strictly  a  treatise  on  hermeneutics,  and 
one  alike  honorable  to  the  acuteness  of  Flacius  and  to 
his  learning.  This  is  very  willingly  acknowledged, 
even  by  our  recent  exegetical  writers,  notwithstand- 
ing all  the  imperfections  of  the  work,  and  is  confessed 
by  Simon  himself;  and  the  truth  of  it  is  more  particu- 
larly evident,  upon  a  comparison  of  this  first  work 
with  the  greater  part  of  those,  which,  in  the  next  cen- 
tury, were  composed  in  imitation  of  it,  by  many  di- 
vines of  our  church. 

Among  these  the  following  may  probably  be  re- 
garded as  worthy  of  particular  notice. 

Wolfgang  Franz  :  Tractatus  theologicus  novus 
et  perspicuus  de  interpretatione  sacrarum  literarum 
maxime  legitima.  Wittenbergae,  1619,  (5th  edition, 
1708,)  Svo. 

John  Conrad  Danhauer  :    Hermeneutica  sacra 

*  Among  the  old  editions  of  the  Clavis,  the  principal  is  that, 
which  was  published  at  Jena  in  1075,  fol.,  with  a  preface  by  John 

MUSVEUS. 

15 


174 


WORKS  ON  INTERPRETATION. 


— sen  methodus  exponendarum  sacramm  literarum, 
Argentor.   1754,  8vo. 

AuGusTiN  Pfeiffer  :  Hermeneutica  sacra,  sive 
tractatio  luculenta  de  interpretatione  sacramm  litera- 
rum. Dresdae,  1684  ;  an  enlarged  edition  with  a  pre- 
face by  Benedict  Carpzov,  entitled :  Thesaurus 
hermeneuticus,  <fec.    Lips.  1690,  4to. 

Many  of  our  divines,  as  Glassius,  Gerhard,  Ole- 
ARius,  and  others,  in  the  more  comprehensive  works 
which  they  composed,  introduced  whatever  branches 
of  literature  belonged  to  exegesis,  and  particularly 
those  relating  to  the  theory  of  hermeneutics ;  yet,  in 
general,  they  merely  made  the  Clavis  of  Flacius  their 
ground  work,  or  raised  upon  it  those  principles  only 
which  had  already  been  developed  in  this  work,  while 
they  were  not  always  able  to  seize  and  express  them  with 
that  nice  precision,  which  Flacius  had  given  to  them. 
Notwithstanding,  there  are  in  most  of  their  works 
excellent  precepts  for  grammatical  interpretation  ;  for 
the  error  of  the  hermeneutics  of  this  period  lay  only  in 
this,  that  the  historical  sense  was  too  much  neglected, 
and  the  grammatical  interpretation  depended  on  as- 
sistance which  was  too  insecure. 

The  characteristic  marks  by  which  interpretation, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  was  for 
some  time  distinguished  in  consequence  of  the  pietistical 
controversies,  are  particularly  conspicuous  in  the  fol- 
lowing works,  in  which  its  character  was,  in  part,  ori- 
ginally formed. 

Herman  Augustin  Francke  :  Preelectiones  her- 
meneuticae — ad  viam  dextre  indagandi  et  exponendi 
sensum  scriptural  sacrae.     Halse,  1723,  Svo. 


WORKS  ON  INTERPRETATION.  176 

Joachim  Langius  :  Hermeneutica  sacra.  Halae, 
1733,  8vo. 

John  James  Rambach  :  Institutiones  hermeneu- 
ticae  sacra3,  variis  observationibus,  copiosissimisqiie  ex- 
emplis  biblicis  illustratae — cum  praefat.  J.  Franc. 
BuDD^i.  Jense,  1723,  8vo. 

These  institutions  of  Rambach  soon  became  the 
principal  work  and  manual  of  hermeneutics,  and  there- 
fore were  not  only  very  often  reprinted,  but  also  illus- 
trated by  many  divines  with  particular  commentaries. 
Thus,  for  instance,  Ernest  Frederic  Neubauer 
published,  at  Giessen,  in  1738,  extensive  and  profound 
illustrations  of  Rambach's  'Institutiones,'  and  Andrew 
Reiersen,  at  Copenhagen,  1741,  Tabulae  synopticae 
in  institutiones  Rambachii,  '  Synoptical  view'  of  the 
same  work. 

Among  these  works,  others  also  made  their  appear- 
ance, some  of  which  were  expressly  intended  to  oppose 
the  principles  of  interpretation  peculiar  to  the  pietists, 
and  others  contained  generally  the  theory  of  herme- 
neutics more  completely  formed.  To  the  former  of 
these  classes  belong : 

Valentine  Ernst  Loescher  :  Breviarium  The- 
ologiae  exegeticae,  legitimam  scripturae  sacrae  interpre- 
tationem  tradens. — Wittenberg.  1719,  8vo. 

Martin  Chladenius  :  Institutiones  exegeticae. — 
Wittenberg.  1725,  8vo. 

Of  the  others,  the  following  is  particularly  conspi- 
cuous : 

Solomon  Deyling  :  de  scripturae  recte  interpre- 
tandae  ratione  et  fatis.  Lips.  1721 ;  and  yet  more  so, 
the  work  of  a  reformed  divine  : 


176  WORKS  ON  INTERPRETATION. 

John  Alphonso  Turretin  :  de  S.  Scripturse  in- 
terpretandae  methodo  tractatus  bipartitus — Trajecti 
Thuniorum,  (that  is  Dort.)  1728.  A  new  and  enlarged 
edition,  by  Teller,  counsellor  of  the  superior  con- 
sistory, was  published  at  Frankfort  on  the  Oder,  in 
1776,  8vo. 

The  followinsf  works,  however,  were  those  which 
gradually  prepared  the  way  for  the  free  hermeneutics 
of  our  own  time,  and  which  principally  promoted  its 
more  general  introduction  and  application. 

SiGisMUND  James  Baumgarten  :  Unterricht  von 
Auslegung  der  heiligen  Schrift, '  Instructions  on  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  sacred  scripture.'     Halle,  1742,  Svo. 

The  same  author's  Ausfuehrlicher  Vortrag  ueber 
die  Hermeneutik,  '  Complete  view  of  hermeneutics,' 
Halle,  1769,  4to. 

John  Solomon  Semler  :  Vorbereitung  zur  theolo- 
gischen  Hermeneutik,  Th.  iii.  '  Preparation  for  theo- 
logical hermeneutics,  in  three  parts,'  Halle,  1759 — 
1768,  8vo. 

The  same  author's  Apparatus  ad  liberalem  Novi 
Testamenti  interpretationem,  Halse,  1767,  8vo.,  and 
Apparatus  ad  liberalem  Veteris  Testamenti  interpreta- 
tionem, ib.  1773,  8vo. 

And,  as  the  most  distinguished  work  in  reference 
to  this  result  :  John  Augustin  Ernesti  :  Institutio 
interpretis  Novi  Testamenti.  Ed.  quart,  cura  Chris- 
toph.Frid.  Amjmon.     Lips.  1792,  8vo.* 

In  addition  to  what  has  been  said,  it  is  necessary 
to  remark,  that  the  proper  epoch,  in  which  our  herme- 
neutics began  perfectly  to  avail  itself  of  the  full  liberty 
•  Note  XLVII. 


WORKS  ON  INTERPRETATION.  177 

which  characterizes  it,  is  to  be  placed  in  the  years 
1771 — 1775.  In  this  period,  Semler,  on  the  one 
side,  in  his  controversies  respecting  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine of  demons,  and,  on  the  other.  Teller,  in  his 
lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  applied  the  principle, 
that  the  Bible  should  be  interpreted  in  the  spirit  of  its 
age,  in  a  manner  quite  novel,  which  gave  a  new  form 
to  our  interpretation.  It  is  sufficiently  certain,  that 
the  principle,  in  itself,  and  also  even  as  extended  to 
the  accommodating  system  of  interpretation,  which  it 
was  applied  to  justify,  was  not  then  originally  invent- 
ed. It  was  even  known  and  made  use  of  by  some  of 
the  older  Greek  fathers.*  The  Socinians  had  occa- 
sionally employed  it  with  great  freedom,  and  Grotius 
with  great  success.  But  even  on  this  very  account  it 
had,  until  this  time,  been  strongly  opposed  in  our  church, 
and  in  the  year  1729  it  was  warmly  attacked  by  Ram- 
BACH  in  his  Dissertatio  contra  hypothesin  de  Scripturae 
Sacrae  ad  erroneos  vulgi  conceptus,  '  A  Dissertation 
against  the  hypothesis  of  accommodating  scripture  to 
commonly  received  erroneous  conceptions.' 

Hence  it  was  that  the  application  which  the  divines 
already  named,  and  many  others  that  followed  them, 
made  of  it,  did  not  pass  without  opposition.  Those  of 
Tuebingen,  particularly,  declared  themselves  very  ear- 
nestly against  the  new  accommodating  system  of  her- 
meneutics.  A  dissertation  by  the  chancellor  Reuss, 
De  oeconomia  qua  Christus  in  docendo  usus  fuisse  di- 
citur.  Tubing,  1773,  4to,  '  On  the  economical  method 
which  Christ  is  said  to  have  employed  in  teaching,' 

*  See  M.  Frederic  Adgustin  Carus  :  Historia  antiquior  sen- 
tentiarum  ccclesia?  GrtECtB  de  accommodatione  Christo  iniprimiB  et 
apoatolis  tributa.  Lips.  171)3, 4to. 

15* 


178  WORKS  ON  INTERPRETATION. 

and  another  by  Dr.  Storr,  De  sensu  historico  scrip- 
turae  sacrse,  Tueb.  17S2,  '  On  the  historical  sense  of 
scripture,'*  contain'  many  admonitions  against  the  ap- 
pUcation  of  this  method  too  extensively  and  without 
sufficient  scrupulousness,  which  do  undoubtedly  de- 
serve to  be  very  attentively  considered.  Another  more 
modern  production,  which  appeared  in  1788,  8vo,  un- 
der the  title,  Bemerkungen  ueber  die  Lehrart  Jesu  in 
Ruecksicht  auf  juedische  Sprache  und  Denkungsart, 
'  Remarks  on  our  Lord's  method  of  teaching  in  refe- 
rence to  the  language  and  mode  of  thinking  of  the 
Jews,  by  C.  Vict.  Hauff,  Offenbach  on  the  Maine, 
has  the  avowed  design  of  limiting  the  abuse  of  this 
method  ;  and  to  the  same  point  has  the  author  of  ano- 
ther work,  still  more  recent,  directed  his  attention  : 
Ueber  die  Lehrart  Jesu  und  seiner  Apostel,  in  wie  fern 
dieselbe  sich  nach  den  damahls  herrschenden  Volks- 
meynungen  gerichtet  haben,  'On  the  method  of  teach- 
ing pursued  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  ;  how  far  they 
have  been  governed  by  the  prevailing  opinions  of  the 
people,'  by  Frederic  Behn,  Lubeck,  1791,  8vo. 
We  have  indeed  reasons  enough  for  wishing  this  prin- 
ciple to  be  limited  within  certain  bounds :  but,  unless 
time,  or  some  new  direction  which  the  spirit  of  our 
theological  investigation  may  perhaps  receive  from  a 
collision  with  the  critical  philosophy,  should  be  able  to 
effect  more  than  has  been  effected  by  the  attempts  thus 
far  made  at  limitation,  there  does  not  really  seem  to  be 
much  ground  soon  to  hope  for  it.     The  most  probable 

*  This  most  valuable  treatise  may  be  found  in  Storr's  Opuscula 
Academica,  Vol  i.  pp.  1 — 88.  It  was  translated  into  English  by  J. 
W.  G.  (Professor  Gibbs,  now  of  Yale  College.)  and  published  at 
Boston  in  1817,  in  r.*nio.     Tr. 


COMMENTARIES. 


179 


reason  for  such  an  expectation  may  still  be  found  in  the 
circumstance,  that  this  new  exegesis  cannot  be  carried 
much  further  than  it  has  already  been  extended. 

II.  The  second  diss  of  hermeneutical  works, 
wliich  must  here  be  introduced,  comprehends  those  in 
which  the  theoretical  principles  of  interpretation  are 
really  applied  to  the  explanation  of  the  whole  Bible, 
or  to  some  of  its  separate  books.  Here,  however,  a  se- 
lection becomes  the  more  necessary,  in  consequence  of 
their  immense  number  ;  and  for  this  reason,  from 
among  each  of  the  various  classes  into  which  they 
again  divide  themselves,  a  few  only  will  be  given,  ex- 
cept, indeed,  with  respect  to  the  latest  and  most  useful 
productions. 

It  will  not  therefore  be  thought  necessary  to  men- 
tion all  those  fathers,  who  have  labored,  in  their  own 
particular  way,  to  explain  the  scriptures  in  separate 
works,  in  commentaries,  or  what  are  called  paraphra- 
ses. Their  exegetical  works  are  also  always  to  be 
found  in  the  collections  of  their  writings,  which  are, 
for  the  most  part  sufficiently  known  ;  and  some  of 
those  works,  in  which  their  interpretations  in  particular 
are  collected,  have  been  before  cited  under  the  name 
of  catenae  patrum.* 

*  With  respect  to  the  characteristics,  and  the  different  spirit,  es- 
timate and  value  of  interpretations  of  the  fathers  in  general,  or  only 
some  particular  fathers,  decisions,  but  exceedingly  various  in  their 
nature,  may  be  found  in  all  larger  works  on  the  doctrine  of  the  fa- 
thers. We  have  a  work  particularly  on  this  subject  by  Whitby  ; 
de  sacrarum  scripturarura  interpretatione  secundum  patrum  com- 
mentarios.  London,  1714.  On  the  mystical  method  of  interpreting, 
John  Christian  Coestek  has  written  :  Dissertatio  de  mysticarum 
interpretationum  studio  ab  iEgyptiis  maxime  patribus  rcpetendo, 
HaliE,  17G0  ;  and  on  that  of  Origen,  John  Augustin  Ernesti  ;  de 
Origene,  intorpretationis   grammaticre   auctore,  &c. 

On  the  interpretation  of  many  of  the  fathers,  a  course  of  histo- 
rical treatises  de  fatis  interpretationis  sacrarum  literarum  in  ecclesia 


180  COMMENTARIES. 

Among  the  hermeneutical  works  of  the  following 
and  of  more  modern  ages,  it  is  proper  to  mention  those, 
in  the  first  place,  which  comprehend  the  whole  Bible, 
accompanying  the  text  throughout  with  explanatory- 
observations.  Some  of  this  class  are  best  known  un- 
der the  name  of  glossed  Bibles.  The  principal 
work  of  this  kind  in  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  is 
the  Bible  with  what  is  called  the  glossa  ordinaria, 
which  was  compiled  as  early  as  the  ninth  century  by 
Walafrid  Strabo,  and  soon  acquired  so  much 
consideration,  that  it  was  quoted  by  the  scholastics  un- 
der the  name  of '  auctoritas.'  It  was  originally  a  cate- 
na of  the  interpretations  of  many  of  the  fathers,  but  it 
received  from  time  to  time  considerable  accessions,  and 
in  the  more  modern  editions  new  matter  was  almost 
always  added.  One  of  the  most  complete,  and  even 
now  most  in  use  in  the  Roman  church,  appeared  in 
the  last  century  under  the  title  :  Biblia  Sacra,  cum  glossa 
ordinaria,  novis  Patrum  Grsecorum  et  Latinorum  ex- 
plicationibus  locupletatse  cumpostilla  Nicol.Lirani — 
a  Leandro  a  S.  Martino.  T.  vi.  Antwerp.  1634,  fol. 

Among  the  commentators  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
there  is  one  who  deserves  to  be  particularly  mentioned, 
as  he  is  distinguished  in  a  very  superior  manner. 

This  is  Alphonso  Tostatus,  bishop  of  Avila  in 
Spain.  His  works  were  collected  and  published  at 
Cologne,  in  1612,  in  twenty-seven  folios,  of  which  his 
commentaries  on  the  whole  Bible  alone  occupy  the 
first  twenty-four. 

Among  the  works  of  this  class,  which  were  corn- 
Christiana,  has  been  published  by  Dr.  RosENMCELLERat  Leipzig,  at 
different  times  ending  in  1794,  in  ix.  Programs.! 
t  Note  XLVIII. 


COMMENTARIES.  181 

posed  after  the  reformation  by  divines  of  our  church, 
in  other  words,  among  the  German  glossed  Bibles  of 
which  Luther's  translation  was  the  text,  the  following 
formerly  stood  in  highest  repute. 

The  Bible,  which  bore  the  names  of  Weimar, 
Ernest,  or,  from  the  place  in  which  it  was  printed, 
Nuremberg,  with  the  title  :  '  Biblia  sacra — ver- 
deutscht  von  Dr.  Luther,  und  auf  Verordnung  Hez- 
zog  Ernest  zu  Sachsen  vonetlichen  reinen  Theolo- 
gen  erklaert — erste  Ausg.  1640  ; — neuste  mit  Ernst 
Sal.  Cyprians  Vorrede — Nuernberg,  1736,  fol. — Bi- 
blia Sacra — translated  into  German  by  Dr.  Luther, 
and  illustrated  by  some  sound  divines  at  the  command 
of  Ernest,  duke  of  Saxony.  First  edition,  1640 — last, 
with  a  preface  by  Ernest  Solomon  Cyprian — Nu- 
remberg, 1736,  fol. 

The  work  of  Pfaff  on  the  Bible,  Tuebingen, 
1729  ;  and  to  this  may  be  added  a  more  modern  pub- 
lication, of  the  same  class,  namely  :  Die  heilige  Schrift 
mit  Anmerkungen,  'the  holy  Scripture  with  annota- 
tions, by  Dr.  John  Godfrey  Koerner,  in  three 
parts.  Leipzig,  1770 — 1773,  4to. 

Different  from  these,  although  belonging  to  the 
same  class,  are  several  other  works,  in  some  of  which 
likewise  the  continuous  text  of  the  whole  Bible,  and  in 
others  that  of  the  Old,  or  New  Testament  in  particular, 
is  explained  by  observations  annexed,  but  in  which  a 
new  translation  is  also  made  the  ground  work. 

Among  the  more  recent  of  this  kind,  the  principal 
place  is  due  to  the  celebrated  Wertheim  translation  of 
the  Bible,  by  John  Lawrence  Schmid,  on  account 
of  the  excitement  it  produced  at  the  time  of  its  publica- 


182  COMMENTARIES. 

tion,  and  also  on  account  of  the  surprise  which  this 
must  now  occasion  us.  But  as  emperor  and  empire 
were  both  wrought  into  a  state  of  ferment  against  this 
translator  and  his  work,  only  the  first  part  of  it  made 
its  appearance  under  the  title  :  Die  Goettiche  Schriften 
vor  den  Zeiten  des  Messias,  durch  und  durch  mit  An- 
merkungen  erlaeutert,  '  the  divine  writings  before  the 
time  of  the  Messias,  illustrated  throughout  with  notes.' 
Werth.  1736,  4to. 

Entire,  and  undoubtedly  far  more  beneficial  as  re- 
spects genuine  acquaintance  with  scripture,  is  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament  with  notes,  by  John  Da- 
vid MicHAELis,  which  appeared  at  Goettingen,  in  13 
parts,  1769-83,  4to ;  and  the  same  author's  transla- 
tion of  the  New  Testament,  Goettingen,  in  three  parts, 
1789-92,  4to  ;  Uebersetzung  des  Alten  Testaments ; 
and  Ubersetzung  des  Neuen  Testaments. 

To  these  works  must  be  added,  Uebersetzung  und 
erlaeuterung  der  heiligen  Buecher  Neuen  Testaments ; 
'  Translation  and  exposition  of  the  sacred  books  of  the 
New  Testament,'  by  Dr.  John  Henry  Molden- 
HAUER,  4  vols,  in  4to.  Leipzig,  1763-70,  and  of  the 
Old  Testament,  6  vols,  in  4to.  Q,uedlinburg,  1774 
—78. 

Of  the  modern  German  translations  of  the  New 
Testament  in  particular,  only  those  two  which  are 
most  dissimilar  need  be  mentioned  ;  namely,  John 
Albert  Bengel's,  printed  at  Stuttgard,  1764,  8vo, 
and  the  famous  one  of  Bahrdt,  with  the  title :  Neu- 
este  Offenbarungen  Gottes  in  Briefen  und  Erzaehlun- 
gen ;  '  Last  revelations  of  God  in  epistles  and  narra- 
tions,' in  4  parts.     Riga,  1773,  8vo. 


COMMENTARIES.  183 

A  second  class  of  works,  belonging  to  this  depart- 
ment, is  formed  of  the  commentaries,  which  are  extant. 
Some  of  them  extend  over  the  whole  Bible  ;  some  are 
limited  to  the  Old,  or  to  the  New  Testament  in  parti- 
cular ;  and  some  again  are  confined  to  certain  books 
of  the  one  or  the  other. 

The  commentaries  that  we  have  of  Luther  on  al- 
most all  the  books  of  the  Bible,  deserve  the  first  place  ; 
but  it  is  unnecessary  to  mention  them  here,  because 
they  are  both  generally  known  and  appreciated.  But, 
next  to  his  works,  no  expositions  were  formerly  more 
highly  esteemed  in  our  church  than  those  of  John 
Brentz,  the  celebrated  Wurtemberg  divine,  which 
likewise  extend  almost  over  the  whole  Bible,  and  fill 
seven  of  the  eight  folio  volumes,  of  which  the  collec- 
tion of  his  works  consists. 

The  principal  divines  of  the  reformed  church,  also, 
ZwiNGLE,  Oecolampadius,  Martin  Bucer,Conrad 
Pelican,  made  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  a  chief 
object  of  their  learned  and  industrious  efforts  to  ad- 
vance the  general  good,  and  thereby  acquired  as  much 
reputation  for  a  purer  religious  knowledge  as  those  of 
our  own.  Yet  all  their  labors  in  this  department  must 
unquestionably  yield  to  those  of  John  Calvin,  who, 
in  his  commentaries  on  all  the  books  of  the  Bible  with 
the  exception  of  the  Apocalypse,  displayed  a  learning, 
an  acuteness,  and  a  spirit,  which  distinguished  him 
from  all  his  contemporaries,  and  allowed  him  to  con- 
tend with  Melancthon  himself  for  the  highest  place.* 
His  commentaries,  also,  fill  almost  the  first  seven  vol- 
umes of  his  works,  the  collection  of  which  was  pub- 
*  Note  XLIX. 


194  C0MMENTARIE8. 

lished  at  Amsterdam,  from  the  year  1667,  in  nine 
folios. 

Of  the  last  century,  it  is  not  necessary  to  mention 
more  than  the  principal  work  of  this  kmd,  namely, 
that  of  Grotius  :  Annotationes  in  Vetus  et  Novinii 
Testamentum  ;  for  it  must  at  that  time  have  been  re- 
garded as  a  principal  work,  since  Abraham  Calo- 
VI us  thought  it  necessary  to  compose  in  opposition  to 
him  his  Biblia  illustrata,  in  four  folios.  Frankfort, 
1672-76.  Notwithstanding  all  the  learning  which 
this  work  of  Calovius  contains,  and  to  which  even 
Richard  Simon  himself  does  justice,*  it  is  now  almost 
forgotten,  while  the  annotations  of  Grotius,  which  had 
only  been  introduced  in  the  collection  of  his  works, 
have  been  considered,  even  in  our  own  day,  by  some 
of  our  most  esteemed  theologians,  as  worthy  of  a  par- 
ticular edition.  They  have  been  published  by  George 
Louis  Vogel  and  John  Christopher  Doederlin, 
enlarged  with  their  own  additions,  at  Halle,  1775-76, 
in  three  vols,  in  4to. 

The  following  great  works  of  the  last  century  and 
of  our  own,  are  prominent  on  account  of  their  contain- 
ing collections  of  the  expositions  of  various  interpreters, 
which,  however,  must  unavoidably  produce  a  strange 
mixture  of  good  and  bad. 

The  work,  entitled  :  Critici  sacri  or  Angli- 
CANi.  It  came  out  originally  at  London  in  1660,  in 
nine  folio  volumes,!  afterwards  at  Frankfort  in  1697, 
in  seven  folios,  and  at  the  same  time  at  Amsterdam 

"  See  his  Histoire  crit.  des  Commentateurs,  chap,  xviii. 

t  The  English  scholars,  who  united  in  the  compilation  of  this 
work,  were  John  Pearson,  Anthony  Scattergood,  Francis 
GouLDMAN,  and  Richard  Pearson. 


COMMENTARIES. 


1^5 


with  some  additions,  which  were  separately  printed  in 
1700,  1701,  by  the  pubhshers  of  the  Frankfort  impres- 
sion, in  two  supplementary  volumes. 

An  epitome  of  this  great  compilation,  published  by 
Matthew  Poole,  who  was  also  an  English  divine, 
with  the  title  :  Synopsis  criticornm  aUorumque  scrip- 
tnrae  sacrae  interpretum  et  commentatorum,  Tom.  v. 
London.  This  work  contains  even  a  greater  treasure 
of  scriptural  illustration  than  the  former,  because  the 
author  drew  from  more  numerous  sources  than  his 
predecessors.  It  was  reprinted  as  early  as  1679,  at 
Frankfort  and  Utrecht,  and  in  1712  at  Frankfort  a 
second  time,  with  a  preface  by  John  George  Priti- 
us,  in  the  same  number  of  volumes. 

To  the  same  class  of  publications  belongs  a  later 
work  of  this  kind  in  German,  and  undertaken  by  Ger- 
man theologians,  namely  :  '  the  holy  scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  together  with  a  complete  il- 
lustration of  them,  being  a  compilation  of  the  choicest 
remarks  of  English  writers,  and  enlarged  with  many 
additions  of  German  divines,  Baumgarten,  Dietel- 
MAiER,  DoEDERLEiN,  Brucker,  aud  othcrs.  In  nine- 
teen volumes  4to.  Leipzig,  1749 — 1770. 

Among  the  exegetical  works,  in  which  the  Old 
Testament  in  particular  was  illustrated,  there  is  scarce- 
ly one,  if  we  except  the  late  work  of  Michaelis,  which 
can  be  compared  to  the  Commentary  of  the  learned 
John  Le  Clerc,  or  Clericus.*  Altogether  it  consists 
of  five  volumes,  folio,  the  first  of  which  was  published 
in  1093. 

But  on  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  there 

*  Note  L, 

16 


186  COMMENTARIES. 

has  not  been  such  frequent  labor  bestowed,  at  least 
not  on  them  as  a  whole,  as  on  those  of  the  New,  which 
from  the  earliest  periods  have  occupied  the  industrious 
attention  of  many  learned  men. 

A  very  happy  illustration  of  this  industry  is  pre- 
sented in  the  paraphrases  of  Erasmus  on  the  New 
Testament,  which  were  published  in  parts  from  the 
year  1517,  and  in  the  edition  of  his  works  by  Le 
ClerCj  Leyden,  1703 — 1706,  ten  vols.  foUo,  are  collect- 
ed in  the  seventh  volume. 

Soon  after  Erasmus  and  in  part  contemporaneous 
with  him,  James  Faber  published  his  commentaries 
on  the  four  gospels,  on  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  on 
the  Catholic  epistles,  which  appeared  at  Metz,  Paris 
and  Basle,  from  1522  to  1527  in  fol. 

The  remarks,  by  which  Theodore  Beza  had  il- 
lustrated the  text  in  several  of  his  editions  of  the  New 
Testament,  were  collected  together  by  Erasmus 
ScHMiD,  in  his  posthumous  work,  containing  a  version 
of  the  New  Testament,  with  notes  and  observations. 
Nuremb.  1658.  fol. 

Very  valuable  also  are  the  paraphrases  on  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament,  which  Moses  Amy- 
RAULT  published  at  Saumur  in  eight  volumes,  from 
1644  to  1651. 

The  French  translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
with  remarks  by  John  Le  Clerc,  appeared  at  Am- 
sterdam, 1703,  two  vols.  4to  ; — another  French  trans- 
lation, with  explanations  by  Beausobre  and  Len- 
FANT,  at  Amsterdam,  1741,  two  vols.  4to  ; — and  the 
celebrated  New  Testament,  with  moral  reflections  by 
father  Pasciuier  CIuesnel,  which  produced  so  much 


COMMENTARIES.  187 

excitement  in  the  Roman  church,  was  published  ori- 
ginally in  1687  at  Paris,  and  afterwards,  much  enlarg- 
ed, at  Brussels  in  1702,  in  eight  vols.  8vo. 

Of  the  English  works  of  this  kind,  it  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  mention  three : 

The  New  Testament  with  annotations,  by  Henry 
Hammond,  D.  D.  It  was  translated  from  English  into 
Latin  by  Le  Clerc,  and  published  at  Frankfort  in 
1714,  in  two  vols.  fol. 

A  Paraphrase  and  commentary  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment, by  Daniel  Whitby,  D.  D.  London,  1727,  two 
vols.  fol. 

A  paraphrastic  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament, 
with  critical  notes,  by  Philip  Doddridge,  D.D.  Lon- 
don. 1738 — 1747,  three  volumes  in  4to.*  It  was  trans- 
lated into  German,  and  published  in  four  volumes, 
4to,  at  Magdeburg,  1750. 

Of  the  Commentaries  on  the  New  Testament  which 
have  been  written  by  our  own  divines,  a  much  more 
extensive  list  might  be  made,  and  it  is  consequently 
the  more  necessary  to  limit  it  to  some  of  the  more 
modern. 

A  mass  of  learning  is  contained  in  John  Chris- 
topher Wolf's  Curae  philologicae  et  criticae  in  Nov. 
Test,  in  four  volumes,  4to,  Hamb.  1738-41. t 

Almost  as  much  learning,  but  less  acuteness,  may 
be  found  in  Christopher  Augustin  Heumann's 
exposition  of  the  New  Testament,  in  twelve  parts, 
Haimov.  1750—1763,  8vo. 

An  excellent  work,  although  less  learned,  is  John 

•  Note  LI. 
I  It  was  also  published  in  five  volumes  4to,  at  Basle,  1741.     Tr. 


188  COMMENTARIES. 

Albert  Bengel's  Gnomon  Novi  Testamenti,  Ed 
tert.  Tubingas,  1773,  4to.  An  abridged  translation 
made  its  appearance  under  the  title :  Das  Neue  Testa- 
ment niit  eingeschalteten  Erklaerungen  als  ein  Auszug 
der  Arbeiten  des  seligen  Bengels,  'the  New  Testament 
accompanied  by  explanatory  remarks,  an  epitome  of 
the  works  of  the  late  Bengel,'  by  David  Christian 
MiCHAELis,  Lips.  1769,  4to. 

Of  the  same  kind  as  this  last  work  is :  Das  Neue 
Testament  mit  einem  genauen  Inhalt,  Sinn,  Zusam- 
menhang  und  Ammerkungen  versehen,  '  the  New  Tes- 
tament, with  an  accurate  view  of  the  contents,  sense, 
connexion,  with  notes,'  by  John  David  Nicolai,  in 
two  parts.  Bremen,  1775. 

Of  a  different  character,  and  intended  for  the  really 
learned  interpreter,  is  the  following  work :  Novum 
Testamentum  Grsecum  perpetua  adnotatione  illustra- 
tum,  a  JoH.  Benj.  Koppe.  Gottengge.  Tom.  i.  iv. 
1778,  1783,  Svo.  Upon  the  death  of  the  author,  this 
work  was  interrupted,  and  it  has  not  yet  been  com- 
pleted by  the  learned  men,  who  since  that  event  have 
published  some  volumes.  The  young  interpreter 
who  is  entering  upon  the  subject,  will  find  a  very  use- 
ful substitute,  in  a  work  intended  for  him,  by  John 
George  Rosenmueller  :  Scholia  in  Nov.  Test. 
Tom.  i— iv.  Norimberg,  1777-83,  8vo.* 

Lastly,  some  of  those  hermeneutical  works  must 
not  be  passed  over  unnoticed,  which  illustrate  and  ex- 
plain separate  books  of  scripture.  In  fact,  this  class 
of  compositions  justifies  the  highest  degree  of  expecta- 
tion ;  for  it  is  to  be  presumed,  that  the  industiy  of  an 
•  Note  LII. 


COMMENTARIES.  189 

interpreter,  who  confined  himself  to  one  particular 
book,  will  have  produced  afreater  results,  than  the  in- 
dustry of  another,  whose  attention  was  divided  among 
several.  And,  in  truth,  this  is  the  case  with  many  of 
these  works.  But,  since  the  number  of  such  interpre- 
tations is  considerable,  it  becomes  the  more  difficult  to 
make  a  selection,  as  only  two  or  three  of  the  most 
valuable  or  recent,  on  each  particular  book,  shall  be 
introduced. 

The  interpretation  of  Genesis,  has  in  our  own 
times  been  very  greatly  facilitated  by  means  of  a  work, 
entitled :  Conjectures  sur  les  memoires  originaux,  dont 
il  paroit,  que  Moyse  s'est  servi  pour  composer  le  livre 
de  la  Genese — par  Jean  Astruc.  Bruxelles,  1753, 
Svo.* — But  all,  which  partly  since,  and  partly  before 
that  time,  has  been  done  and  attempted,  correctly  to 
settle  the  interpretation  of  that  book,  is  now  brought 
together  in  J.  G.  Eichhorn's  Urgeschichte,  'primi- 
tive history,'  an  edition  of  which  has  been  published, . 
with  an  introduction  and  remarks,  by  Dr.  John  Phi- 
lip Gabler,  in  two  parts,  1791-93,  8vo.t 

On  the  other  books  of  Moses,  so  far  as  relates  to  the 
history  of  the  formation  of  the  Israelitish  common- 
wealth and  the  code  of  laws  which  they  contain,  the 
workof  MicHAELis  on  the  Mosaic  law  is  undoubtedly 
the  best  commentary,  t 

In  the  beginning  of  the  last  century  Nicolas  Sera- 
Rius  published,  at  Mayence,  a  commentary  on  most 
of  the  other  historical  books  of  the   Old  Testament, 

*  Note  LIII.  t  Note  LIV.  t  Note  LV. 

16* 


190  COMMENTARIES. 

which,  ill  the  judgment  even  of  Snnon,  is  equally  dis- 
tinguished for  its  learning  and  acuteness.* 

We  have  an  exposition  of  the  Hagiographa  in  the 
work  of  John  Henry  Michaelis  :  adnotationes  ube- 
riores  philologico-exegeticse  in  libros  Hagiographos 
Vet.  Test.  Tom.  iii.  Halse,  1645—1751,  4to.t 

In  works  of  this  class,  the  Psalms  in  particular  are 
most  frequently  explained,  but  the  most  recent  work  is 
that  of  Dr.  George  Christ.  Knapp,  who  published 
a  translation  of  them  with  remarks,  at  Halle,  1778, 
1782,  8vo.  Die  Psalmen — ueberstetzt  und  mit  Anmer- 
kungen. 

On  Job  the  principal  work  is  that  of  Albert 
SchulTens,  entitled  :  Liber  Jobi  cum  nova  versione 
et  perpetuo  commentario.  Lugd.  Bat.  Tom.  ii.  4to. 
1737.  A  new  edition  of  this  work,  somewhat  abridged, 
was  published  by  George  Louis  Vogel,  at  Halle,  in 
two  vols.  8vo,  in  1773-4. 

The  same  author's  book  on  the  Proverbs  must  take 
precedence  of  all  others :  Proverbia  Salomonis  cum 
commentario.  Lugd.  1748,  4to.  This  work  also 
was  published  by  Vogel  in  1769,  accompanied  by 
a  valuable  mictarium  by  William  Abraham  Tel- 
ler. 

Less  comprehensive  is  the  translation  of  the  Pro- 
verbs of  Solomon  with  explanatory  remarks,  by  John 
Christopher  Doederlein,  the  second  edition  of 
which  was  printed  at  Altorf  in  1782,  8vo. 

*  His  commentary  on  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Kings 
and  Chronicles,  first  came  out  at  Mayence,  in  part  after  his  death  in 
the  years,  1609.  1610, 1617,  fol. 

t  Note  LVI. 


i 


COMMENTARIES.  191 

Der  Prediger  Salomo,  mit  einer  Erklaeriing  nach 
dem  Wortsverstand,  von  Mosen  Mendelsohn,  aus 
deni  Hebraeischen  uebersetzt  von  Joh.  Jac.  Rabe, 
'  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  with  an  interpretation  ac- 
cording to  the  hteral  sense,  by  Moses  Mendelson, 
translated  from  the  Hebrew  by  John  James  Rabe. 
Anspach,  1771,  4to.'  This  is,  in  various  respects,  a 
valuable  work. 

On  the  Song  of  Solomon,  which  has  suffered  more 
by  incorrect  interpretation  than  any  other  book,  we 
have  all  that  is  learned  in  John  Mark's  Commenta- 
rms  in  Canticum  Salomonis.  Amstel.  1703,  4to,  The 
commencement  of  an  improved  method  of  treating  this 
poem  was  made  in  the  small  work  of  John  Frederic 
Jacobi,  in  Svo,  printed  in  1771,  with  the  title  :  Das 
durch  eine  leichte  und  ung-ekuenstelte  Erklaerunsf 
von  seinen  Vorwuerfen  gerettete  hohe  Lied  ;  '  the 
Song  of  Solomon  delivered,  by  an  easy  and  unaffected 
interpretation,  from  the  imputations  cast  upon  it.'  This 
improvement  it  really  received  in  a  publication  of  Dr. 
HuFNAGEL  :  Salomos  hohe  Lied  gepreuft,  uebersetzt 
und  erlaeutert ;  '  Solomon's  Song  examined — trans- 
lated and  explained.'  Erlangen,  1784,  Svo. 

With  respect  to  the  prophetical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  we  may  consider  the  two  following  works 
in  the  light  of  general  introductions. 

Nicolas  Guertler  :  Systema  theologiae  prophe- 
ticae.  Ed.  sec.  Francof  1724,  4to. 

Christian  Augustin  Crusius  :  Hypomnemata 
ad  Theologian!  propheticam.  Tom.  ii.  Lips.  1764, 
1771,  8vo.* 

•  Note  LVII. 


192  COMMENTARIES. 

The  prophecies  of  Isaiah  in  particular,  have  lately 
occupied  the  attention  of  many  scholars.  In  addition 
to  the  older  production  of  Campegius  Vitringa  : 
Comment,  in  Esaiam — ed.  nov.  Basil.  Tom.  iii.  1732, 
fol.,*  we  have  a  work  of  Doederlein  :  Esaias — ex 
recensione  textus  Hebra^i  cum  notis,  Altorf.  Ed.  sec. 
1780,  8vo  ;  and  a  new  English  translation,  with  notes, 
by  Robert  Lowth,  D.  D.  London,  1778,  4to.  This 
was  translated  into  German  by  John  Benjamin 
KoppE,  and  published  with  additions  and  observa- 
tions, at  Leipzig  in  three  vols.  8vo.  1779,  1780.t 

For  a  long  time  we  possessed  scarcely  any  thing 
on  Jeremiah,  except  the  Commentary  of  Henry  Ve- 
nema,  Loewarden,  1765,  two  vols.  4to.  But  at  pre- 
sent we  have,  in  addition,  the  work  of  John  David 
MicHAELis,  entitled  :  Observationes  philologicae  et 
criticae  in  Jeremiae  Vaticinia  et  Threnos — edid.  mul- 
tisque  animadversionibus  auxit — Joh.  Frid.  Schleus- 
ner.  Goetting.  1793,  4to.t 

The  prophecies  of  Ezekiel,  and  particularly  of  his 
latter  temple,  received  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  last 
century,  very  learned  interpretations  in  the  following 
work  :  Hieron.  Pradi  et  Joh.  Bapt.  Villalpan- 
Di  in  Ezekielem  explanationes  et  adparatus  urbis  ac 

*  It  has  several  times  been  published,  in  two  volumes  folio.  Tr. 
The  publication  of  a  German  translation  of  this  work,  compressed, 
was  commenced  by  Anthony  Frederic  Buesching  in  1749-51.  at 
Halle,  in  two  vols.  4to. 

t  Note  LVIII. 

t  The  more  recent  work  of  the  lately  deceased  Gottlob  Leber 
Spohn,  professor  of  theology  at  Wittemberg:  Jeremias  Vates  ever- 
sione  Judaeorum  Alexandrinorum  ac  reliquorum  interpret.  Graec. 
emendatus — Lips.  1794.  8vo.,  does  not  belong  to  the  class  of  inter- 
pretations. 

Vol.  ii.  of  Spohn's  work  was  published  by  his  son  in  1823. — A 
notice  of  Blatnet's  Jeremiah  may  be  seen  in  Home.  p.  233.  Tr. 


COMMENTARIES.  195 

templi  Hierosolymitani — illustratus.  Romae,  Tom.  iii. 
1569 — 1604,  fol.;  but  a  work  of  more  utility  is  that  of 
John  Frederic  Stark  :  Comment,  in  prophetam 
Ezekielem.  Francof.  1731,  4to. 

Ancient  and  modern  attempts  to  remove  the  difh- 
cuhies  in  the  collection  of  Daniel's  prophecies  are  to 
be  found  in  Martin  Geier's  Prselectiones  academicae 
in  Danielem.     Lips.  1762,  4to. 

Herman  Venema — Dissert,  ad  vaticin.  Danielis  : 
Cap.  ii.  viii.  viii.  Leovard,  1745,  4to,  and 

Exposition  of  the  book  of  Daniel — by  John 
Christopher  Harenburg,  in  two  parts.  Blanken- 
burg.  1770-72,  4to.* 

Lastly,  on  the  twelve  mmor  prophets,  we  have,  be- 
sides a  laro;'e  number  of  interpretations  on  separate 
books.t  tlie  work  of  John  Marck  :  Commentarius  in 
xii  prophetas  minores — in  Pfaff's  edition.  Tubing. 
1734.  fol. 

Translations  of  the  prophets,  with  the  exception  of 
Jonah,  by  Christian  Godfrey  Struensee,  in  three 
vols.     Halberstadt,  1769-73.  8vo. 

Prophetae  Minores  ex  recensione  Textus  Hebrsei 
cum  notis  Joh.  Aug.  Dathe.  Halas,  ed.  ii.  1779, 
Svo. 

Among  the  expository  writings  on  particular  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  none  are  more  important  and 
neces.sary  than  those  which,  under  the  name  of  Har- 

*  Note  LIX. 

t  Among  these  the  most  distinguislied  is  the  Commentary  of 
Edward  Pococke  on  Hosea  and  Joel.  Oxford  1G85— 91,fol. 

For  a  notice  of  Horseley's  Hosea,  Pococke  on  Hosea,  Joel, 
Micah,nad  Malachi,BLAYNEv's  Zecliariah,  Newcome's  Ezekiel  and 
minor  Prophets,  with  other  English  works,  see  Home,  pp.  234, 
8s.  Tr. 


194  COMMENTARIES. 

monies  of  the  evangelists,  comprehend  the  four  Gos- 
pels, illustrate  one  by  means  of  the  others,  and  en- 
deavor, by  comparing  their  accounts,  to  determine 
throughout  the  true  chronological  order  of  these  works 
and  of  the  history  of  Christ.  But  as  this,  unhappily, 
has  been  done  in  almost  all  cases,  in  various  methods, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  attempt  to  compare  some  of 
them  together.* 

Among  the  older  works  of  this  kind  the  best,  un- 
doubtedly, is  that  of  Martin  Chemnitz:  Harmonia 
quatuor  Evangehstarum — quam  Polycarpus  Lyse- 
RLs  continuavit — Johannes  Gerhardus  perfecit. 
Ed.  nov.  Hamburg.     Tom.  iii.  1704.  fol. 

To  the  end  of  the  last  century  belong  the  following : 

Bernhard  Lamy  :  Commeiitarius  in  harmoniam 
et  concordiam  quatuor  evaiigeliorum.  Tom.  i.  Paris. 
1699,  4to  ;  and  Harmonia  evangelica,  cui  subjecta  est 
historia  Christi  ex  quatuor  evangeliis  concinnata — 
auct.  Jo.  Clerico.  Amstelod.  1698,  fol. 

Later  works  of  this  kind  are  these  : 

John  Reinhard  Rues  :  Harmonia  Evangehsta- 
rum. Tom.  iii.  Jenae,  1727-30.  Svo. 

John  Albert  Bengel's  richtige  Harmonic  der 
Evangelisten,  'accurate  harmony  of  the  Gospels.' 
Third  edition,  Tuebingen,  1766,  Svo. 

Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  by  Eberard  David 
Hauber,  together  with  the  same  author's  life  of  Jesus 
Christ,  drawn  from  the  four  Gospels,  and  remarks  on 
the  harmony.     Lemgo,  1737,  4to. 

New  harmony  of  the  Gospels,  by  Ernest  Augus- 
tus Bertling.     Halle,  1767,  4to. 
*  Note  LX. 


COMMENTARIES.  195 

Some  illustrations  of  the  gospel  of  St.  Matthew  in 
particular  are  contained  in  the  commentary  of  Solo- 
mon Van  Till  which  appeared  in  1708  at  Frankfort, 
translated  from  the  Dutch,  and  at  the  time  of  its  publi- 
cation was  greatly  valued.  Also  the  Dubia  evangeli- 
ca  discussa  et  vindicata  of  Frederic  Spanheim,  pub- 
lished at  Geneva,  1704,  in  three  vols.  4to,  relates  prin- 
cipally to  this  Gospel. 

In  addition  to  these,  we  have  :  James  Elsner's 
Commentarius  critico-philologicus  in  evangelium 
Matthaei — cum  notulis  Ferdin.  Stosch,  Zwolliae, 
Tom.  ii.  1769.  4to.  But  the  third  volume,  which  ap- 
peared at  Utrecht  in  1773,  contains  a  commentary  on 
the  gospel  of  St.  Mark. 

On  the  great  question  relating  to  this  evangelist, 
whether  he  was  an  epitomist  of  St  Matthew  or  not,  we 
have  two  treatises  ;  one  by  Koppe,  of  the  year  1780, 
which  maintains  the  negative,  and  another  by  Gries- 
BACH,  counsellor  of  the  consistory,  published  in  1789, 
asserting  and  proving  the  affirmative. 

On  St.  Luke ; — Observationes  philologicae  et  theo- 
logicae  in  Lucae  cap.  ix.  priora,  auct.  Carolo  Segaar, 
Trajecti,  1766,  8vo. 

On  St.  John  ; — the  old  valuable  work  of  Freder- 
ic Adol.  Lampe  :  Commentarius  analytico-exegeticus 
— Evangelii  secundum  Johannem.  Tom.  iii.  Amste- 
lod.  1724-26,  4to.  A  later  and  still  more  valuable 
publication  is  that  of  Storr,  Ueber  den  Zweck  des 
Evangeliums  und  der  Briefe  Johannis,  '  on  the  design 
of  the  gospel  and  epistles  of  St.  John.'  Tuebingen, 
1786,  8vo.* 

•  Note  LXI. 


196  COMMENTARIES. 

On  the  Acts  ;  John  Louis  Lindhammer's  Aus- 
fuehrliche  Erklaemng  und  Anwendnng  der  Apostel- 
geschichte,  '  Copious  explanation  of  the  Acts  of  the 
apostles,  with  application.'  Halle,  1725,  fol.  Also : 
Dissertatio  in  Acta  Apostolornm,  by  John  Ernest 
Immanuel  Walch.  Jenas,  1756-59-61.  Tom.  iii. 
4to. 

Of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  there  are  so  many  inter- 
pretations, that  it  is  impossible  to  take  notice  of  any 
but  the  more  modern. 

Among  these  belong  the  paraphrases  of  three  dis- 
tinguished English  scholars,  which  in  a  manner  con- 
stitute one  whole  ;  namely  :  A  paraphrase  of  Paul's 
epistles  to  the  Romans,  Galatians,  Ephesians  and  Co- 
rinthians, by  John  Locke,  London,  1709, 4to.  This  was 
translated  into  German  by  John  George  Hoffman, 
and  published  at  Francfort,  1769,  two  vols.  4to. — A 
paraphrase  of  the  epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Colossians, 
Philippians  and  Hebrews,  by  James  Pierce,  London, 
1724,  1733,  4to. — Also,  a  paraphrase  of  the  epistles  to 
the  Thessalonians,  Philemon,  Timothy,  and  Titus, 
by  George  Benson,  London,  1734,  4to.  This  also 
was  translated  into  German,  together  with  his  para- 
phrase on  the  Catholic  epistles.  Leipsig,  1761,  four 
vols.  4to. 

From  the  scholars  of  our  own  country,  we  have 
the  following  works. 

Exposition  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Gala- 
tians, Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  Thessaloni- 
ans, and  Philemon,  by  Sigismund  James  Baumgar- 
TEN  ;  to  which  some  contributions  were  made  by 
Semler.  Halle,  1767,  4to. 


COMMENTARIES.  197 

Paraphrase  and  notes  on  the  epistles  of  Paul  to 
the  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians, 
Thessalonians,  Timothy,  Titus  and  Philemon,  hy 
John  David  Michaelis.  Goettingen,  1750,  4to. 

A  paraphrastic  interpretation  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  by  Gotth.  Traug.  Zachari^,  Goettingen, 
1769,  8vo.  Also,  on  the  two  epistles  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans, 1769,  and  on  those  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians, 
Philippians,  Colossians,  Thessalonians,  1770,  8vo,  both 
works  published  at  Goettingen  by  the  same  author. 

Of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  taken  separately,  those 
addressed  to  the  Romans  and  Hebrews  have  occupied 
the  attention  of  the  greatest  number  of  interpreters. 
On  the  former,  there  are  among  the  later  works — 

A  Paraphrase  with  notes  on  the  epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, by  John  Taylor,  London,  1745,  4to.  A 
German  translation  was  publisiied  at  Berlin  in  1759, 
4to. 

Benedict  Carpzov  :  Stricturae  in  epistolam 
PauU  ad  Romanos.  Helmstad.  ed.  sec.  175S. 

Christian  Frederic  Schmid  :  Annotationes  in 
Epist.  Pauli  ad  Romanos.  Lips.  1777,  8vo. 

On  the  Hebrews  :  John  Andr.  Cramer's  Erklae- 
rung  des  Briefes  an  die  Hebraeer,  '  Explanation  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  two  parts,'  Copenhagen, 
17.58,  4to;  also  Baumgarten's  with  Masch'.s  notes, 
and  additions  by  Semler,  Halle,  1763,  4to  :  and, 
that  of  Michaelis,  in  two  parts,  Frankfort,  1762,  64, 
4to. 

A  new  translation  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  by 
MoRus.  Leipz.  ed.  sec.  1781,  4to. 

17 


198  COMMENTARIES. 

The  epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  illustrated  by 
Dr.  Storr.  Tuebingen,  1789,  8vo. 

A  complete  introduction  to  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, by  Werner  Charles  Ziegler.  Goettingen, 
1790,  Svo. 

Epistola  Pauli  ad  Hebraeos  Graece,  perpetua  anno- 
tatione  illustrata  a  J.  H.  Heinrichs.  Goettiiigae, 
1792,  Svo.* 

On  the  epistles  which  are  called  Catholic,  there  is, 
besides  the  paraphrase  of  Benson,  a  brief  exposition 
by  Zachari^,  Goetting.  1776,  Svo,  and  also  a  work 
by  David  Julius  Pott  :  Epistol.  Catholicae  Graece, 
perpetua  annotatione  illustratae.  Vol.  i.  ii.  Goettingae, 
1786,  90.  Svo. 

Lastly ;  Among  the  great  variety  of  works  which 
have  been  published  on  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  the 
following  only  can  be  here  mentioned : 

The  Revelation  of  John,  or  rather  of  Jesus  Christ 
interpreted,  by  John  Albert  Bengel.  Second  edi- 
tion, Stuttgard,  1746,  Svo. 

John  Christopher  Hareneerg  :  Erklaerung 
der  Offenbanmg  Johannis,  'Interpretation  of  the  Re- 
velation of  John.'  Brunswick,  1759,  4to. 

Maranatha — or  the  book  of  the  coming  of  the 
Lord.    By  J.  G.  Herder.  Riga,  1779,  Svo. 

And,  the  latest  work  which  has  appeared  on  this 
book  of  scripture,  J.  G.  Eichhorn  :  Commentarius  in 
Apocalypsin.  Tom.  ii.  Gottingae,  1791,  Svo.t 

♦  Note  LXII.  +  Note  LXIII. 


OBJECT  TO  BE  PROPOSED.  199 


CHAPTER    VII. 

After  this  brief  list  of  the  principal  literary  works 
relating  to  the  interpretation  of  scripture,  nothing 
further  is  necessary,  with  respect  to  this  last  branch 
of  knowledge  belonging  to  the  study  of  interpretation, 
than  to  subjoin  some  observations  on  the  method  by 
which  we  may,  with  the  most  facility  and  success,  not 
only  comprehend  those  principles,  but  also  apply  them 
with  some  degree  of  readiness.  These  observations 
may  be  reduced  to  a  small  compass.  For,  on  the  one 
hand,  in  this  subject  all  depends  simply  on  the  correct 
determination  of  the  object  proposed  by  any  one  in 
the  study  of  hermeneutics,  from  which  the  observa- 
tions then  flow  of  themselves  ;  and,  on  the  other,  after 
what  has  already  been  stated,  it  can  hardly  be  further 
necessary,  to  recommend  it  on  any  peculiar  grounds. 

Now  with  respect  to  that  object,  it  may  certainly 
be  presumed,  that  the  principal  aim  of  every  one  who 
applies  himself  to  the  study  of  hermeneutics  must  be 
this  :  to  place  himself  by  means  of  this  knowledge  in 
such  a  situation,  as  will  enable  him,  by  the  aid  of  cor- 
rect principles,  to  explain  the  Bible  for  himself,  and 
with  his  own  eyes  to  discover  its  contents  ;  and  fur- 
ther, to  apply  his  knowledge  as  a  test  of  the  interpre- 
tations of  others,  thereby  forming  a  judgment  respect- 
ing the  results  to  which  they  have  arrived.  We  may 
safely  suppose,  that  every  man,  who  is  clearly  con- 
scious of  any  design  on  this  subject,  will  have  this 
two-fold  view  ;  at  least,  it  is  easy  to  show,  that  one  of 
•  Note  LXIV 


200  OBJECT  TO  BE  PROPOSED. 

these  objects  cannot  be  possessed  without  the  other, 
and  that  either  this  design,  or  none  that  is  reasonable, 
must  be  contemplated. 

But  here  it  cannot  possibly  be  concealed,  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  usual  way  of  pursuing  an  exegetical 
course  at  most  of  our  universities,  this  does  not  seem 
to  be  the  principal  aim  of  the  greater  proportion  of 
students.  The  tisual  way  is,  to  attend  (whenever  it  is 
practicable  to  do  so,)  one  or  more  courses  of  exegetical 
lectures  on  all  the  books  of  the  Bible,  to  hear  these  in- 
terpreted by  an  instructor,  and  merely  to  endeavor 
to  note  down  his  interpretations  as  fully  as  possible, 
and  then — to  lay  them  up  for  future  use.* 

If  we  may  judge  according  to  this  view  of  the  case, 
the  design  of  the  great  proportion  would  seem  to  be 
this  :  to  collect  together,  during  their  theological 
course  at  the  university,  from  the  oral  instruction  of 
one  or  more  teachers,  a  complete  commentary,  if  pos- 
sible, on  the  whole  Bible :  for  nothing  beyond  this 
design  can  be  attained  by  such  a  method.  But,  that 
this  cannot  be  the  design  which  a  man  ought  to  have, 
is  in  the  strongest  manner  brought  home  to  the  feel- 
ings, because  it  does  not  in  any  degree  at  all  corres- 
pond with  the  trouble  which  his  acquisitions  must 
have  cost  him. 

If,  indeed,  this  is  the  ultimate  object  which  a  man 
aims  at,  if  nothing  more  is  wished  than  to  have  a  com- 
mentary, which  may  afterwards  be  consulted,  to  which 
he  may  resort  when  pressed  with  a  difficult  text,  and 
which  may  supply  materials  sufficient  in  general  for 
interpretation  within  the  family  circle  and  in  the  pui- 
•  Note  LXV. 


OBJECT  TO  BE  PROPOSED.  901 

pit ;  this  may  be  attained  with  mucli  greater  ease, 
and  undoubtedly  at  a  much  cheaper  rate.  We  have 
already  printed  commentaries  in  abundance.  We 
have  them  of  all  kinds,  in  all  forms  and  sizes,  of  de- 
sirable brevity  and  of  desirable  length,  in  Latin  and  in 
German.  It  is  only  necessary  for  a  man  to  accomo- 
date himself  with  one  or  two  of  these,  and  he  has  all 
that  he  wants ;  he  can  spare  himself  the  trouble  of 
taking  notes  on  four  or  five  courses  of  exegetical  lec- 
tures, which,  in  this  case,  would  be  a  labor  altogether 
superfluous. 

Undoubtedly  there  might  often  be  a  very  great  dif- 
ference between  the  commentary  which  a  man  may 
procure,  and  the  exegetical  course  of  lectures  which 
he  may  hear ;  yet  there  are  late  works  of  this  kind, 
highly  valued,  and  indeed  with  great  reason,  which 
in  part  have  given  the  tone  to  the  whole  interpretation 
of  our  age,  and  those  every  professor  himself  in  pre- 
paring his  lectures  must  use.  This  then  is  a  conside- 
ration which  removes  almost  all  the  difference  which 
could  arise ;  or  at  least,  renders  it  unimportant. 

For  one,  who  contents  himself  with  merely  hear- 
ing an  exposition  of  what  the  Bible  contains,  it  is  not 
of  very  great  importance,  at  least  in  a  principal  re- 
spect, what  the  interpretation  is.  Whether  he  rely 
upon  an  old  commentator  or  a  modern  interpreter,  in 
all  cases  he  can  only  see  with  the  eyes  of  another ;  in  all 
cases  he  is  only  led  by  the  guidance  of  another.  And, 
so  long  as  he  cannot  himself  determine  whether  the 
way  in  which  he  is  conducted  is  the  right  one,  his 
confidence  is  nothing  but  a  blind  faith,  which  must  in- 
duce him  to  follow  indifferently  the  good  or  the  bad 
17* 


202  OBJECT  TO  BE  PROPOSED. 

guide,  to  receive  as  true  the  most  erroneous  interpreta- 
tions as  well  as  the  most  correct.  For  this  purpose, 
it  is  plain  that  no  particular  study  is  requisite.  If  a 
man  is  willing  to  content  himself  with  this,  he  may 
spare  himself  the  labor  of  interpretation  altogether. 
Hence,  then,  it  is  most  clearly  evident,  that  a  very  dif- 
ferent design  from  this  must  be  proposed,  and  this  can 
l3e  none  other  than  the  one  already  stated.  In  pursu- 
ing the  study  of  hermeneutics,  the  only  design  which 
can,  with  any  appearance  of  reason,  be  aimed  at  is,  to 
learn  how  to  interpret  for  one's  self,  and  to  form  a 
judgment,  on  sure  fundamental  principles,  respecting 
the  conclusions,  which  the  interpretation  of  others  has 
deduced  from  the  Bible.  In  reference  to  this  design, 
and  only  to  this,  must  the  method  also  be  determined, 
by  which  we  should  be  guided  in  the  subject  under 
consideration. 

If  this  point  be  admitted,  the  necessity  of  the  fol- 
lowing conditions,  and  the  propriety  of  the  directions 
resulting  from  them  for  the  study  of  interpretation, 
will  strike  every  one  of  themselves. 

The  first  condition  is  this :  no  one  should  venture  to 
begin  interpreting  for  himself,  or  even  to  suppose  that  he 
has  acquired  the  ability  necessary  for  such  a  task,  before 
he  has  collected  sufficient  philological  knowledge  of 
the  languages  of  our  sacred  writers,  from  the  sources 
before  adduced,  and  in  the  method  already  laid  down. 
It  has  been  shown  in  this  work,  that  philological  ac- 
quaintance with  language  is  the  first  and  most  neces- 
sary aid  and  instrument  in  interpreting  ;  and,  as  it  is 
a  self  evident  truth,  that  no  man  can  explain  a  book 
while  he  is  unacquainted  with  the  language  in  which 


METHOD  OF  ATTAINING   IT.  203 

it  was  written,  this  at  any  rate  need  not  be  further  de- 
veloped, although  it  may  be  the  more  necessary  to 
take  some  notice  here  of  the  very  absurd  method 
which  is  too  often  pursued  in  studies  of  this  nature. 

The  usual  manner  in  our  universities  is,  to  begin 
with  hearing  exegetical  lectures,  before  the  student  has 
acquired  grammatical  knowledge  enough  to  enable 
him  to  understand  even  the  words  of  the  oriorinal  text : 
and,  in  fact,  not  a  few,  who  are  earnest  in  pursuing  a 
thorough  course  of  study,  begin  in  this  way  for  the 
very  purpose  of  learning  biblical  philology,  and  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  the  language  of  scripture. 

A  part  of  this  object  they  may  also,  in  some  degree, 
secure  in  this  way.  In  interpreting  before  a  class, 
every  professor  must  of  course  point  out  the  significa- 
tions of  the  words,  the  characteristics  of  his  author's 
language,  the  peculiarities  of  his  style  and  grammar. 
All  of  this  a  student  may  apprehend,  observe,  and  at 
all  events  note  down,  and  thus  he  may  collect  a  con- 
siderable number  of  fi-agments  of  biblical  philology  of 
no  little  use.  But,  in  most  cases  of  this  kind,  what 
can  a  man  do  with  such  fi-agments?  Not  to  urge, 
that  they  are  nothing  but  fragments,  that  for  the  most 
part  they  suppose  an  acquaintance  with  the  first  and 
most  necessary  grammatical  principles  of  the  language 
to  have  been  already  made,  that  no  teacher  in  an  exe- 
getical collegiate  course  can  enter  into  these,  that 
what  he  draws  from  higher  philology  can  be  of  no  use 
to  those  who  are  not  conversant  in  the  elements  of 
grammar  ;  to  set  aside  all  this,  who  can  easily  expect 
immediately  to  seize  upon  these  scattered  philological 
notices,  as  they  must  be  given  in  the  lecture  of  an  in- 


204  METHOD  OF  ATTAINING  IT. 

structor,  in  reference  to  their  sources,  their  reasons 
and  objects,  so  as  to  be  able  to  apply  them  himself 
with  safety  ?  If  a  man  cannot  do  this,  or  does  not  de- 
sire to  do  it,  he  does,  in  fact,  what  is  equivalent  to  a 
formal  renunciation  of  any  purpose  of  interpreting  for 
himself 

It  is  tlierefore  absolutely  necessary,  to  bring  to  the 
study  of  hermeneutics  a  knowledge  of  the  first  princi- 
ples at  least  of  the  grammar  of  the  sacred  languages. 
For  this  study  can  teach  us  nothing  more  than  how 
to  ascertain  the  sense  of  scripture  by  the  assistance  of 
that  knowledge  of  its  languages  ;  it  can  only  show  us 
how  we  must  apply  philology  to  interpretation,  in  or- 
der to  be  certain  whether  the  interpretation  is  correct 
it  is  therefore,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  indispensa- 
bly necessary  to  have  previously  acquired  that  know- 
ledge. 

Secondly  :  the  next  thing  then  to  be  done  undoubt- 
edly is,  or  should  be,  to  become  acquainted  with  the 
principles  of  hermeneutics,  with  those  general  rules 
which  sound  understanding  prescribes,  and  those 
means  of  assistance  and  invention,  which  logic  must 
supply.  In  fact,  the  knowledge  of  these  is  now  indis- 
pensable ;  but  this  knowledge  may  be  procured  in 
more  ways  than  one,  and  it  is  by  no  means  a  matter  of 
indifference  which  of  them  shall  be  selected. 

These  principles  and  rules  can  be  readily  enough 
found  in  the  best  directions  for  hermeneutics  which 
are  most  accessible.  Neither  are  these  principles  so 
numerous  as  to  require  any  great  trouble  to  extract 
them  from  these  directions,  or  any  great  effort  to  re- 
tain them  in  memory  ;  much  less  are  they  so  abstract, 


METHOD  OF  ATTAINING  IT.  205 

as  to  demand  particular  aciiteness  or  deep  thought,  in 
order  to  penetrate  into  the  grounds  of  them,  and  thus 
become  convinced  of  their  truth.  If  we  proceed  on 
this  direct  course,  we  certainly  can  arrive  quickly  and 
easily  enough  at  an  acquaintance  with  them  ;  but  still 
considerable  advantages  appear  to  be  possessed  by  ano- 
ther, which,  although  it  does  not  so  promptly  lead  to 
the  same  result,  accomplishes  the  object  with  equal 
certainty. 

We  may  ourselves  draw  these  rules  and  principles 
of  hermeneutics,  even  from  examples  wherein  they  are 
applied,  and  thereby  secure  the  advantage  of  making 
ourselves  acquainted  at  the  same  time  with  the  princi- 
ples themselves,''and  with  the  manner,  with  the  bene- 
fits, with  the  talent  of  applying  them  ;  and  thus  we 
shall  the  sooner  acquire  a  readiness  in  this  matter. 
Yet  It  is  probable  that  both  of  these  methods  may  be 
connected  without  inconvenience,  and  this  would  un- 
doubtedly be  the  most  useful  course.  At  all  events, 
there  would  certainly  be  no  loss  of  time,  if  a  student, 
preparatory  to  his  first  exegetical  course,  should  apply 
himself  for  some  days  to  the  Interpres  of  Ernesti,  in  or- 
der to  obtain  from  it  the  rules  which  should  guide  in 
mterpreting.  A  few  days  only  would  be  quite  sufficient 
for  this  purpose.  Let  him  then  be  shown  by  an  in- 
structor— not  how  these  rules  can  be  applied — but 
their  actual  application  in  interpreting,  and  by  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  scriptures  let  them  as  it  were  be 
brought  before  him ;  in  other  words,  let  him  attend  to 
a  course  of  instruction  according  to  these  rules,  and 
thus  learn  the  art  of  applying  them  from  the  pro- 
cedure of  his  interpreter. 


206  METHOD  OF  ATTAINING  IT. 

That  he  ought  not  in  this  stage  to  venture  himself 
to  make  the  apphcation,  and  immediately  to  exercise 
himself  in  interpreting,  is  too  plain  to  need  proof;  for 
in  the  first  effort  it  will  certainly  be  found  that  this  re- 
quires some  experience,  which  can  only  be  gradually 
obtained  by  attentive  observation  of  the  endeavors  of 
others.  But  this  observation  is  undoubtedly  made 
with  the  most  effect,  by  attending  a  course  of  interpre- 
tation, and  listening  to  the  oral  instruction  of  a  teach- 
er. It  may  indeed  be  drawn  also  from  any  commen- 
tary on  the  Bible,  or  on  some  separate  book.  We 
need  only  ask  ourselves  in  regard  to  any  interpreted 
passage,  why  the  commentator  has  explained  it  in  this 
way  and  not  in  another,  and  we  shall  not  only  in  ge- 
neral easily  ascertain  the  rule  by  which  he  was  go- 
verned, but  also  be  in  a  situation  to  perceive  the  par- 
ticular manner  in  which  he  applied  it.  But  in  the 
oral  lecture  of  an  instructor,  we  see  as  it  were  this 
very  application  ;  we  can  observe  the  proper  rise  of 
the  interpretation,  the  gradual  growth  and  formation 
of  the  true  sense  of  a  passage  interpreted  according  to 
those  rules ;  we  perceive,  with  clearer  apprehension, 
how  the  whole  business  can  be  conducted,  how  much 
foresight  may  be  directed  to  it,  where  it  may  be  abbre- 
viated or  lightened ;  we  learn  also  along  with  many 
practical  advantages,  and  in  this  way  we  certainlv 
shall  approach  nearer  to  the  object  in  view  in  a  short 
space  of  time,  than  we  could  possibly  do  in  a  longer 
period,  spent  in  pursuing  a  course  of  study  entirely 
private. 

Tlie  benefit  of  exegetical  lectures  is,  in  this  view  of 
the   subject,  strictly  and   unequivocally  determined ; 


METHOD  OF  ATTAINING  IT.  207 

but,  even  in  this  view,  is  it  also  very  evident  how,  and 
for  what  purpose,  they  can  and  ought  especially  to  be 
used. 

In  such  collegiate  courses,  it  should  not  be  the 
principal  point,  merely  to  learn  what  the  instructor 
explains  from  the  Bible,  but  to  notice  how  he  explains 
it.  In  other  words,  we  should  not  regard  it  as  the 
great  object  of  attention,  simply  to  hear  another  inter- 
pret what  the  Bible  contains,  but  rather  this :  to  as- 
certain HOW  WE  MAY  BE  ABLE  OURSELVES  TO  DIS- 
COVER ITS  CONTENTS.  We  must  therefore  pay  more 
attention  to  the  teacher's  method  of  interpretation 
than  to  his  interpretation  itself,  more  to  the  manner 
than  to  the  results  of  his  exegesis,  more  to  the  reasons 
from  which  he  shows  the  true  sense  of  a  passage  of 
scripture,  than  to  that  sense  itself  which  he  shows  as 
the  true  one. 

The  ground  of  this  may  be  seen  in  that  design 
which  a  man  should  have  in  the  study  of  liermeneu- 
tics,  and  which  alone  can  properly  be  called  reasonable. 
But  in  order  to  attain  this  object  it  is  not  necessary,  to 
attend  lectures  on  the  whole  Bible  and  all  its  separate 
books  ;  it  can  very  well  be  attained  by  hearing  a 
course  of  instruction  on  some.  It  may  indeed,  not- 
withstanding this,  be  requisite  to  attend  particular  ex- 
positions of  some  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of 
some  of  the  New  ;  and  in  peculiar  circumstances  and 
with  certain  objects  in  view,  it  may  also  be  very  use- 
ful, if  opportunity  offer,  to  hear  more  than  one  inter- 
preter on  the  same  book.  The  tyro  in  hermeneutics 
during  this  period,  or  in  this  term  of  his  course,  can 
derive  little  or  no  advantage  from  what  are  called  Cur- 


208  METHOD  OF  ATTAINING  IT. 

soria,  or  brief  outlines.  Undoubtedly  they  may  be  use- 
ful in  a  variety  of  respects,  and  the  more  certainly  if  the 
whole  Bible  is  gone  through  with  them ;  but  their  utili- 
ty is  confined  to  those  who  are  prepared  for  them  by 
other  means,  and  who  have  approached  the  close  of 
the  third  term,  which  they  have  to  pass  through. 

After  the  student  has  acquired,  in  the  proposed 
way,  some  clear  ideas  respecting  the  practical  applica- 
tion of  the  principles  of  hermeneutics,  then  in  the  third 
and  last  place,  it  is  time  for  him  to  begin  to  exercise 
himself  in  interpreting ;  for  which  no  particular  direc- 
tions are  now  necessary.  In  order  the  sooner  to  ac- 
quire a  readiness  in  this  matter  and  a  confidence,  it  is 
perhaps  of  chief  importance,  to  undertake  it  at  first 
rather  slowly,  to  adopt  nothing  without  being  able  to 
give  one's  self  an  accurate  account  of  the  reasons 
which  have  led  to  its  adoption,  and  not  to  advance  a 
step  without  a  clear  consciousness  of  the  causes  which 
make  it  necessary.  In  order  to  acquire  this  habit  the 
more  readily,  it  would  be  very  proper,  to  select  de- 
signedly, for  the  first  efforts  in  interpretation,  some  pas- 
sages of  scripture,  the  exposition  of  which  involves 
several  difficulties.  If  we  exercise  ourselves  at  first 
with  very  easy  passages,  we  may  very  soon  be  led  into 
the  error  of  supposing  the  business  of  hermeneutics 
much  lighter  than  it  is,  or  to  congratulate  ourselves 
on  having  acquired  a  greater  ability  in  conducting  it 
than  is  really  the  fact.  On  the  other  hand,  we  can  in 
no  event  lose  any  thing,  if  we  originally  venture  on 
difficult  places  :  for  if  in  the  attempt  we  find  them  too 
difficult  for  our  abilities,  we  thereby  experience,  with 
the  utmost  certainty,  what  deficiencies  in  our  know- 


METHOD  OF  ATTAINING  IT.  209 

ledge  still  remain  to  be  supplied  ;  and  if  we  succeed  in 
the  effort,  we  may  be  certain  of  a  favorable  result  in 
reference  to  all  easy  places.  The  correctness  of  these 
attempts  of  our  own  will  be  best  put  to  the  proof,  by 
comparing  the  interpretations  thus  deduced,  with 
others  which  can  easily  be  found  in  the  abundance  of 
commentaries  extant. 

That,  by  pursuing  this  method,  a  man  does  and 
must  learn  to  become  his  own  interpreter,  is  not  only 
a  matter  of  experience,  but  is  also  to  be  presumed. 
Still  however — and  this  consideration  affords  the  most 
suitable  conclusion  to  the  whole  subject — it  is  certain- 
ly most  clearly  evident,  that  no  one  can  ever  learn  to 
interpret  for  himself,  unless  he  has  acquired  the  neces- 
sary knowledge  of  all  the  literature  already  introduced 
as  belonging  to  exegetical  theology.* 

*  Note  LXVI. 


18 


TRANSLATOR'S    NOTES. 


The  notes  appended  lo  this  work  are  added  by  the  translator,  in 
order  to  give  the  student  who  is  unacquainted  with  criticism  and  inter- 
pretation a  general  view  of  the  most  prominent  points  connected  with 
the  subjects  to  which  the  author  refers.  If  he  wishes  to  acquire  a  more 
minute  knowledge  of  the  several  topics  brought  before  him,  the  sources 
of  information  are  abundant ;  and  the  most  important  and  useful  are 
pointed  out  in  the  course  of  the  work.  More  particular  references 
will  occasionally  be  made  in  the  notes. 


NOTE    I. 


This  observation,  which  is  one  of  great  practical  im- 
portance, might  easily  be  illustrated,  by  showing,  that  in 
general  those  writers,  whose  acquaintance  with  langua- 
ges is  but  limited,  are  more  remarkable  for  inaccuracy 
in  forming  or  developing  their  thoughts,  than  others,  whose 
philological  knowledge  is  considerable.  In  theological 
controversy,  its  truth  is  most  conspicuous  :  and  many  a  dis- 
cussion of  this  kind  would  have  been  crushed  in  its  very 
bud,  if  the  disputants  had  formed  clear  conceptions  of  the 
litigated  points,  and  had  been  able  to  define  with  tolerable 
accuracy,  the  terms  they  employed.  "  Explain  terms  " — 
is  one  of  the  rules  laid  down  by  Claude,  in  his  admirable 
Essay  on  the  Composition  of  a  Sermon,  and  it  is  no  less 
important  for  the  theological  writer,  than  for  the  Christian 
preacher.  It  is  said  of  Plato  that  he  accustomed  his  pu- 
pils to  define  with  precision  the  ideas  which  they  attached 
to  language.  See  Voyage  d'Anacharsis,  Chap.  vii.  Tom. 
ii.  p.  141,  ed.  Paris,  l'2mo,  1810. 


212 


NOTES. 


NOTE    II. 

I  have  retained  the  word  "  dialect"  which  is  used  by 
the  author,  although  it  is  not  considered  by  some  critics 
as  accurately  applied  to  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament. 
See  a  very  able  article  on  the  nature  and  character  of  this 
Greek  style,  by  Henry  Planck,  son  of  the  author  of  this 
work,  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  conducted  by  Edward 
Robinson,  D.  D.  late  Professor  Extraordinary  in  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary  at  Andover,  Vol.  I.  No.  iv.  pp.  638 — 689. 
In  this  Essay  the  influence  of  the  Macedonian  conquests, 
and  also  of  the  Hebrew  language  on  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament,  is  traced  by  the  hand  of  a  master. 

NOTE    III. 

This  remark  is  connected  with  the  previous  question, 
'  whether  the  Greek  or  Aramaean  language  was  employed 
in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.'  As 
the  truth  seems  to  be  that  both  these  languages  were  then 
in  use  in  that  country,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  disser- 
tations of  Pfannkuche  and  Hug,  in  the  Biblical  Repository, 
Vol.  I.  No.  ii.  pp.  317—363,  and  No.  iii.  pp.  530—551, 
with  the  introductory  remarks  of  the  editor  in  No.  ii.  pp.  309 
— 317.  He  will  there  find  a  brief  historical  sketch  of  the 
controversy  on  this  subject,  and  a  view  of  the  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  use  of  each  language  respectively. 

NOTE    IV. 

As  most  of  the  apostles  were  natives  of  Galilee,  or 
lived  in  that  country,  near  which  numbers  of  persons  had 
long  been  residing  to  whom  the  Greek  language  was  ver- 
nacular ;  it  is  evident  that  the  intercourse  with  those  per- 
sons which  the  ordinary  occupations  of  life  required  must 


NOTES.  213 

have  obliged  the  apostles,  to  use  the  Greek  language  as 
spoken  by  them.  St.  Paul,  who  was  a  citizen  of  Tarsus 
in  Ciiicia,  no  doubt  used  the  Greek  as  there  spoken  in  his 
intercourse  with  his  Gentile  fellow  citizens.  The  declara- 
tion of  the  author  requires,  therefore,  some  modification. 

NOTE    V. 

When  it  is  considered  that  the  character  of  the  Greek  of 
the  New  Testament  is  not  Hebraistic  merely,  but  partakes 
also  in  a  considerable  degree  of  that  which  distinguishes 
the  later  and  less  elegant  Greek  writers,  who  flourished 
after  the  formation  of  the  common  dialect,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Macedonian  conquests  on  that  dialect ;  it  must 
be  evident,  that,  in  addition  to  the  Septuagint  version,  there 
are  other  sources  to  which  the  student  should  apply  in 
order  to  form  a  correct  acquaintance  with  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament.  These  he  will  find  pointed  out  in 
the  Essay  of  Planck  before  referred  to,  pp.  656,  657.  He 
divides  them  into  three  classes;  first,  writers  subsequent  to 
the  age  of  Alexander  ;  second,  writers  who  have  treated  ex- 
pressly of  this  style,  viz.  the  grammarians,  scholiasts,  and 
lexicographers  ;  and  third,  writings  which  have  come  down 
to  us  composed  in  the  later  diction,  such  as  the  Alexan- 
drine and  other  Greek  versions,  the  New  Testament  itself, 
the  Apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and 
the  apostolical  fathers. 

NOTE    VI. 

Perhaps  it  would  be  more  accurate  to  say, — "  with 
which  the  Hebrew  was  anciently  in  part  identified."  The 
probability  appears  to  be,  that  the  Hebrew  is  only  one  dia- 
lect of  a  language,  which  was  originally  employed  as  the 
medium  of  communication  in  Syria,  Phoenicia,  Mesopo- 
18* 


214  NOTES. 

tamia,  Babylonia,  Arabia  and  Ethiopia.  From  the  differ- 
ent appellations  given  by  the  patriarch  Jacob  and  his  father- 
in-law  to  a  heap  of  stones  erected  as  a  pledge  of  mutual 
amity,*  it  is  evident,  that  in  some  respects  at  least,  the 
language  of  the  Syrians  differed  at  that  early  period  from 
that  of  the  Hebrews.  And  yet,  from  the  whole  patriarchal 
history,  it  would  seem  not  less  evident,  that  the  difference 
could  not  have  been  very  considerable  or  extensive ; 
and  an  examination  of  the  monuments  which  remain  of 
both  establishes  the  conclusion,  that  they  were  radically 
the  same.  Abraham,  his  son,  grand  sons,  connexions  and 
dependents,  are  constantly  represented  as  migratory.  But 
no  difficulty  seems  to  have  existed  in  communicating  with 
tlie  different  tribes  or  nations  among  whom  they  travelled  : 
and  from  this  it  would  appear  to  be  a  reasonable  inference, 
that  one  dialect,  sufficiently  common  for  the  purposes  of 
general  intercourse,  must  have  been  then  in  use.  If  it 
should  be  said,  that  like  the  merchants  of  ancient  times 
and  of  the  middle  ages,  the  patriarchs  could  have  acquired 
sufficient  knowledge  of  the  various  tongues  of  the  people 
among  whom  they  travelled ;  this  must  be  allowed.  But 
such  a  supposition  will  not  meet  all  the  difficulties  of  the 
case,  as  an  acquisition  of  various  languages  in  this  way,  is 
hardly  to  be  assumed  of  all  the  members  of  their  large 
families,  or  rather  of  extensive  bodies  of  men,  as  they  are 
more  properly  to  be  regarded.  If  Abraham's  own  family 
supplied  him  with  318  native  servants  able  to  bear  arms,t  h 
is  plain  that  his  domestic  establishment  must  have  amount- 
ed, at  least,  to  1,500  souls.  Unless  the  several  dialects 
approximated  sufficiently  near  each  other  to  constitute 
some  general  medium  of  communication,  it  will  be  diffi- 
cult to  account  for  the  apparent  facility  with  which  Rache' 

*  Gen.  XXXI,  47.  t  See  Gen.  xiv,  14. 


NOTES.  215 

converses  with  Jacob.  And  that  this  is  the  true  solution 
of  the  phenomena  is  strengthened  by  subsequent  facts. 
When  Moses  leaves  Egypt  and  connects  himself  with  the 
Midianites  in  Arabia,  he  is  able  to  converse  with  the  daugh- 
ter of  the  priest  in  the  language,  which  in  his  youth  he  had 
learned  in  the  family  of  his  Hebrew  parents.  When  his 
Midianite  father-in-law  visits  him  in  the  desert,  they  have 
no  difficulty  in  holding  intercourse  with  each  other.  It  is 
worthy  of  notice  also,  that  some  centuries  afterwards,  as 
late  as  the  time  of  the  Judges,  the  language  spoken  by  the 
Midianites,  who  are  none  other  than  Arabians,  was  under- 
stood by  the  Hebrews  without  an  interpreter.  This  is 
plain  from  the  fact,  that  Gideon,  who  had  entered  at  night 
the  camp  of  the  enemy,  understood  the  narration  of  a 
dream  which  he  heard  one  Midianite  communicating  to  his 
companion.*  The  supposition  that  Gideon's  knowledge 
was  peculiar  to  himself,  does  not  seem  to  be  probable. 

NOTE    Vil. 

In  applying  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  text  the 
greatest  possible  caution  is  necessary.  In  the  first  place, 
we  should  be  intimately  acquainted  both  with  the  ordinary 
and  peculiar  grammatical  forms  of  the  language.  Altera- 
tions of  the  text  may  often  be  traced  to  the  want  of  this. 
Several  various  readings  in  Greek  manuscripts  have  arisen 
from  the  transcribers'  ignorance  of  the  principle  of  attrac- 
tion. Then  again  an  author  may  be  accustomed  to  sole- 
cisms not  occurring  in  any  other  writer  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Let  the  critic  be  on  his  guard  lest  he  mar  the 
text  of  his  author,  at  the  very  time  when  he  imagines  that 
he  is  correcting  it.  This  has  probably  been  the  fact  in 
several  instances,   and  particularly  in  the  Af>ocalypse  of 

♦  See  Judges  vii.  13—15. 


216  NOTES. 

St.  John.  Comp.  i.  5.  ii.  20.  iii.  12  ;  to  which  several  other 
passages  might  be  added.  The  case  ought  to  be  very 
clear  indeed,  to  allow  the  application  of  the  author's  prin- 
ciple. The  reader  will  not  fail  to  remark  the  limitations  to 
which  he  himself  restricts  it. 

NOTE    VIII. 

To  assist  us  in  forming  a  correct  idea  of  the  criticism 
of  the  New  Testament,  some  general  knowledge  of  the 
most  important  manuscripts  is  necessary,  which  it  is  the 
design  of  this  note  to  communicate.  It  must  of  course  be 
very  general,  as  a  particular  and  altogether  satisfactory  ac- 
count cannot  be  obtained,  except  by  consulting  various 
authors  and  examining  fac-similies.  See  Simon's  Histoire 
Critique  du  texte  du  Nouveau  Testament,  Chap,  xxix — 
xxxiii,  pp.  336,  ss.,  also  his  Dissertation  Critique  sur  les 
principaux  Actes  Manuscrits,  appended  to  his  Histoire  Cri- 
tique desprincipaux  Commentateurs  du  N.  T. ;  Michaelis' 
Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  translated  from  the 
German  and  considerably  augmented  with  Notes,  &c.  by 
the  Right  Rev.  Herbert  Marsh,  D.  D.  F.  R.  S.  Vol.  II. 
Part  I.  pp.  159.  ss.  Edit.  iii.  ;  Horne's  Introduction,  Vol. 
II.  pp.  97,  ss.  Edit.  vi.  Lond.  and  Montfaucon's  Palaeo- 
graphia  Grseca.  The  two  last  works  contain  specimens 
from  which  the  reader  may  acquire  a  sufficient  acquaint- 
ance with  the  different  characters  in  which  manuscripts 
were  written. 

There  are  many  manuscripts  which  contain  readings 
that  may  be  called  characteristic.  These  are  either  de- 
rived from  the  same  source,  or  are  copies  one  of  an- 
other ;  and  the  affinity  which  they  bear  to  each  other  has 
induced  critics  to  form  them  into  classes,  each  class  corres- 
ponding in  a  great  degree  with  what  is  meant  by  an  edi- 


NOTES.     .  217 

tion,  as  the  term  is  applied  to  printed  books.  This  classi- 
fication or  relationship  is  called  by  Semler*  recensio,  and 
the  same  word  is  used  by  GaiESBACH.t  Bengel|  employs 
the  term  familia  or  natio  ;  Michaelis  (in  Marsh's  Trans- 
lation,) uses  edition  ;  Laurence^  text ;  and  Nolan||  class. 

In  the  greatest  number  of  manuscripts  the  Gospels  only 
are  contained  ;  a  considerable  number  comprehend  the  Gos- 
pels, the  Epistles  and  Acts  ;  a  few  the  Apocalypse.  The 
whole  of  the  New  Testament  is  seldom  to  be  found  in  one 
manuscript.  As  several  have  chasms,  it  is  not  to  be  con- 
cluded that  a  manuscript  accords  with  the  commonly  re- 
ceived text,  because  it  is  not  referred  to  in  a  critical  edition 
as  differing  from  it ;  for  the  passage  or  even  the  book  in 
which  it  occurs  may  be  wanting. 

It  must  be  observed,  that  there  are  certain  manuscripts 
which  are  called  in  Greek  dvayvuxriiaTa,  from  dvayiydicrKcj,  to  read, 
and  in  Latin  lectionaria.  The  portions  which  they  con- 
tain are  those  which  were  appointed  to  be  read  in  the  pub- 
lic service  of  the  Church,  and  hence  they  derive  their 
name.  The  text  of  the  lectionaria  was  occasionally  altered 
to  accommodate  to  the  approved  readings  of  a  particular 
period ;  and  introductory  clauses  were  often  added,  to  prepare 
the  hearer  or  reader  for  the  history  or  discourse  that  was  to 
follow.  Such  introductory  clauses  are  sometimes  retained  in 

*  Apparatus  ad  liberalem  Novi  Testamenti  interpretationem,  Halae, 
17G7,  8vo. 

t  .Symbolae  Criticae  ad  supplendas  el  corrigendas  variarum  Novi  Tes- 
tamenti lectionuin  coUectiones.  Halle,  1785,  8vo.  Vol.  II.  Also,  in 
the  Prolegomena  to  his  New  Testament. 

t  Apparatus  Criticus  ad  Novum  Testamentum,  Tubingae,  1763,  4to. 

§  Remarks  upon  the  systematical  classification  of  Manuscripts  adopt- 
ed by  Griesbach  in  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament.  O.vford,  1814, 
Svo.  pamphlet. 

II  An  Inquiry  into  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  or  received  text 
of  the  New  Testament.     London,  1815. 


218  NOTES. 

our  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  See,  for  example,  the  Gos- 
pels for  the  sixth  and  ninth  Sundays  after  Trinity,  for  St. 
Philip  and  St.  James'  day,  and  that  for  All  Saints'  day. — 
From  these  and  other  circumstances  the  evidence  which 
these  manuscripts  afford  in  determining  the  correctness  of 
readings  in  general,  is  less  to  be  relied  on  than  that  of  others. 

In  some  manuscripts  the  Greek  text  is  accompanied  by 
a  Latin  translation,  with  which,  in  the  opinion  of  certain 
critics  it  has  been  made  to  correspond.  Hence  the  text  of 
such  manuscripts  has  been  said  to  latinize  ;  but  this  charge 
is  thought  by  some  of  the  best  critics  to  be  unfounded. 
When  a  Latin  version  accompanies  the  text,  the  copy  is 
called  a  Greek-Latin  manuscript. 

The  manuscripts  which  are  of  principal  importance  in 
relation  to  controverted  readings  are  the  following.  They 
are  all,  with  the  exception  of  the  three  last,  written  in 
uncial  characters,  that  is,  in  large,  or  capital  letters. 

The  first,  which  is  designated  in  critical  editions  by  an 
A,  was  presented  to  Charles  I.  by  Cyril  Lucar,  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  and  is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  It 
is  called  tTie  Alexandrine  Manuscript,  (Codex  Alexan- 
DRiNus,)  because  Cyril  is  said  to  have  brought  it  from 
Alexandria,  of  which  place  he  had  been  patriarch.  It 
contains  the  whole  Bible.  The  Old  Testament,  which  is 
the  Septuagint  version,  is  in  three  folios.  The  New  is  in 
one,  and  commences  with  Matt,  xxv,  6,  the  preceding  part 
being  wanting.  On  the  antiquity  of  this  manuscript,  cri- 
tics have  been  greatly  divided  in  opinion.  Some  have  as- 
cribed it  to  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century,  some  to  the 
fifth,  others  to  the  sixth,  and  others  again  will  not  allow  it 
to  be  more  ancient  than  the  eighth.  A  fac-simile  of  it, 
containing  the  New  Testament  was  published  by  Dr. 
WoiDE  at  London,  in  1786,  in  one  splendid  folio. 


NOTES.  219 

The  next  important  manuscript  is  called  the  Vatican, 
(Codex  Vaticanus,)  and  is  usually  referred  to  in  critical 
editions  by  a  B.  Its  name  is  derived  from  the  Vatican  Li- 
brary at  Rome,  where  it  is  preserved.  It  contains  the  whole 
Greek  Bible.  In  the  New  Testament  the  order  of  the 
books  is  as  follows :  the  Gospels,  the  Acts,  the  seven  Cath- 
olic Epistles,  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  with  the  exception  of 
those  to  Timothy,  Titus  and  Philemon,  and  the  latter  part 
of  that  to  the  Hebrews  from  ix,  14,  a/zoj/ioi;  n}  ecij.  The  re- 
mainder of  the  manuscript  is  lost,  and  consequently  it  wants 
the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John  ;  although  this  and  the  latter 
part  of  Hebrews  have  been  added  by  a  modern  transcriber. 
It  is  disputed  whether  this  or  the  Alexandrine  manuscript 
is  of  higher  antiquity  ;  and  different  critics  have  assigned 
it  different  dates,  from  the  fourth  century  to  the  seventh. 

The  third  manuscript  to  be  mentioned  is  generally  de- 
noted by  a  C.  It  is  a  Codex  rescriptus,  (in  Greek 
naXiiixpriaTOi,)  and  is  SO  Called  because  over  the  original  wri- 
ting— which  comprehended  the  whole  Greek  Bible,  and 
which  was  imperfectly  erased — the  works  of  Ephrem  the 
Syrian  were  written ;  and  thus  the  material  was  made  to 
contain  two  different  publications.  This  expedient  was  oc- 
casionally resorted  to  in  ancient  times,  in  consequence  of 
the  difficulty  of  procuring  parchments  or  other  substances 
suitable  to  be  used  for  writing.  The  manuscript  has  many 
chasms.  It  is  placed  by  some  critics  in  the  seventh  centu- 
ry ;  by  others  in  the  sixth. 

Another  manuscript  particularly  deserving  of  notice,  is 
called  the  Cambridge,  (Codex  Cantabrigiensis,)  or  Be- 
za's,  (Codex  Bez^e,)  or  Stephen's  /3  ,  and  is  designated  by 
D.  It  was  given  to  Cambridge  by  Beza  in  1581,  for  which 
reason  it  is  known  by  both  these  names  ;  and  because  .some 
of  the  best  critics  have  identified  it  with  a  manuscript  used 


220  NOTES. 

by  Robert  Stephens,  and  marked  ff  in  his  celebrated  edi- 
tion of  1550,  it  has  received  also  the  third  of  the  above 
mentioned  appellations.  It  is  a  Greek-Latin  manuscript  of 
the  Gospels  and  Acts,  with  many  chasms.  The  arrange- 
ment of  the  Gospels  is  that  which  is  usual  in  Latin  copies, 
thus :  Matthew,  John,  Luke,  Mark.  Some  have  thought 
that  the  Cambridge  manuscript  is  corrupted  from  the  Latin, 
because  many  of  its  characteristic  readings  agree  with  the 
Vulgate,  and  many  with  some  of  the  old  Latin  versions. 
But  this  agreement  only  shows  that  their  testimony  respect- 
ing readings  coincides  :  it  by  no  means  proves  that  either 
was  altered  from  the  other  ;  although  if  it  did,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  the  Latin  might  as  readily  have  been  altered  from 
the  Greek  as  the  Greek  from  the  Latin.  In  the  opinion  of 
the  most  judicious  and  accurate  critics,  this  manuscript 
cannot  possibly  be  more  modern  than  the  eighth  century, 
and  most  probably  was  written  in  the  fifth  ;  although  it  may 
have  been  written  considerably  before  that  period. 

The  next  manuscript  in  uncial  letters  is  the  Clermont, 
(Codex  Claromontanus.)  This  also  is  a  Greek-Latin 
manuscript,  marked  D.  Although  the  letter  which  desig- 
nates it  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  preceding  manuscript,  no 
confusion  can  possibly  arise,  as  the  Clermont  contains  no 
other  part  of  the  New  Testament  except  St.  Paul's  epistles. 
It  is  preserved  entire  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris,  certain 
sheets,  which  are  said  to  have  been  stolen,  having  been  re- 
placed. Dr.  Mill  supposed  this  manuscript  to  be  the 
second  part  of  the  Codex  Cantabrigiensis  ;  an  opinion  which 
is  satisfactorily  refuted  by  Wetstein.  It  is  assigned  by  the 
critics  to  the  sixth  or  seventh  century. 

Three  other  manuscripts,  written  in  small  characters, 
are  principally  worthy  of  attention,  because  of  the  intimate 


NOTES.  221 

connexion  they  have  with  the  much  contested  passage  in 
I  John  V.  9.  7 

The  first  of  these,  which  contains  the  whole  New  Tes- 
tament, is  called  the  Montford  or  Dublin  Manuscript, 
(Codex  Montfortianus  or  Dublinensis,)  and  is  quoted 
by  Erasmus  in  his  note  on  1  John  v.  7,  under  the  name  of 
Codex  Brittanicus,  because  he  was  informed  that  a  Greek 
manuscript  containing  the  above  mentioned  text,*  had 
been  found  in  England.  No  particulars  of  its  history  can 
be  traced  farther  back  than  this  period,  1519 — 1522.  It 
belonged  to  Dr.  Montfort,  a  Cambridge  theologian,  who 
lived  in  the  former  half  of  the  17th  century,  and  afterwards 
became  the  property  of  Archbishop  Usher,  who  presented 
it  to  the  library  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  where  it  now 
is,  and  whence  it  has  derived  its  other  title.  On  the  au- 
thority of  this  manuscript  alone,  Erasmus  inserted  1  John 
V.  7,  in  his  third  edition,  having  omitted  it  in  his  first  and 
second  ;  and  he  inserted  it  in  consequence  of  a  promise  he 
had  made  of  introducing  it  in  his  next  edition,  if  any 
Greek  manuscript  containing  it  should  be  found.  Hence 
the  suspicion  has  arisen  that  the  manuscript  was  written  for 
this  very  purpose.  It  is  universally  allowed  that  it  is  very 
modern,  and  probably  was  not  written  before  the  fifteenth 
century,  as  it  is  divided  according  to  the  Latin  chapters  in- 
troduced by  Hugo  in  the  thirteenth,  which  is  not  the  case 
with  any  Greek  manuscripts  written  before  the  fifteenth, 
when  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of  Constantinople,  the 
Greeks  fled  into  the  west  of  Europe.  As  some  of  its  read- 
ings are  remarkably  coincident  with  those  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  it  is  very  likely  that  its  author  was  not  a  little  in- 
debted to  this  , version.     Compare  in  the  same  chapter  of 

*  See  Critici  SacriTom.  viii.  Col.  272. 

19 


222  NOTES. 

St.  John  verse  6,  its  reading,  Xptardi  (instead  of  irvcS/za,)  lanvf) 
dMdcia  with  the  Vulgate,  "  Christus  est  Veritas." 

It  has  been  conjectured  that  the  Codex  Brittanicus  of 
Erasmus  was  a  different  manuscript  from  the  present  Mont- 
fortianus  or  Dublinensis,  because  Erasmus  in  quoting  from 
it  1  John  V.  7,  omits  ayioi  after  the  first  rrveviia,  and  bt  before 
the  second  liaprvpovvres,  both  of  which  are  to  be  found  in  this 
manuscript.  But  it  ought  to  be  recollected,  that  this  quo- 
tation occurs  in  his  defence  addressed  to  James  Lopez 
Stunica,  (a  Spanish  divine  with  whom  he  had  a  contro- 
versy on  this  subject.)  in  which  most  probably  he  trusted  to 
his  memory.  In  his  third  edition,  where  he  professes  to 
introduce  from  the  Codex  Brittanicus  what  was  wanting 
in  his  own  manuscripts,  this  controverted  passage  agrees 
exactly  with  the  Codex  Dublinensis. 

The  second  of  these  manuscripts,  which  also  contains 
the  whole  New  Testament,  is  known  by  the  name  of  the 
Codex  Ravianus  or  Ravii  or  Berolinensis,  containing 
also  1  John  v.  7.  This  manuscript  was  brought  from  the 
East  by  Professor  Rave  of  Upsal,  and  is  now  in  Berlin  : 
hence  its  titles.  It  is  generally  admitted  by  critics  that  it 
is  an  imposture,  a  copy  of  the  Greek  text  in  the  Complu- 
tensian  Polyglot,  of  which  it  is  said  to  look  like  a  fac-sim- 
ile.  It  even  copies  from  this  edition  errors  of  the  press, 
from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  writer's  knowledge 
of  Greek  was  very  limited.  Where  its  readings  differ  from 
the  Complutensian,  as  they  frequently  do,  they  agree  with 
the  textuary  or  marginal  readings  in  the  third  edition  of 
Stephens.  When  Erasmus  challenged  Stunica  to  produce 
a  single  Greek  manuscript  containing  ]  John  v.  7,  he  would 
undoubtedly  have  appealed  to  the  Codex  Ravianus,  had  he 
known  of  its  existence. 


NOTES. 


223 


The  other  Manuscript  is  the  Codex  Ottobianus  pre- 
served in  the  Vatican  Library  and  numbered  298.  It  contains 
the  disputed  passage,  although  somewhat  different  from  the 

common  reading,  thus  : — and  rov  dvpanov.  TTariip,  Xuyoj,  Kai  irvcvfta 
aytov,  Ka'i  it  rpct;  tij  to  if  dai.      Kut    Tpcif  daiv  hi  fiaprvpovvTCi    diro  rrff  y^f 

— .ScHOLTz,  who  discovered  this  manuscript  and  made  it 
known,  ascribes  it  to  the  14th  century.  The  lateness  of 
its  date  diminishes  the  value  of  its  testimony  in  favor  of 
the  text  in  question.  See  Lee's  Prolegomena  to  Bagstek's 
Polyglot.  Prol  vi.  Sect.  ii.  p.  72. 

NOTE    IX. 

Griesbach,  in  his  Diatribe  on  1  John  v.  7,  8,  at  the  end 
of  his  New  Testament,  gives  instances  of  marginal  glosses 
existing  in  some  ancient  Greek  manuscripts,  which,  most 
probably,  by  assistance  obtained  from  the  Vulgate,  have 
given  rise  to  the  text  itself  These  glosses  seem  to  be  of 
the  same  character  as  the  mode  of  reasoning  suggested  by 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  and  more  clearly  developed  by 
Facundus,  Augustin,  and  other  Latin  Fathers,  on  the 
genuine  8th  verse,  in  connexion  with  John  x.  30,  who  de- 
duce the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  by  a  mystical  interpretation 
of  "the  Spirit,  the  Water,  and  the  Blood."  Griesbach  says 
also,  that  the  Lateran  council  of  1215  first  exhibits  the  entire 
verse  in  aGreek  version,  although  differing  from  the  received 
text  in  the  absence  of  the  article,  and  the  collocation  ofTwC/ia 
before  aytov.  In  ihe  following  century,  Manuel  Calecas, 
a  Greek  who  had  become  a  convert  to  the  Latin  church, 
and  was  perhaps  a  Dominican  friar,  in  his  zeal  to  establish 
the  addition  oi  Jilioque  to  the  creed  of  the  Greeks,  wrote  a 
book  "  de  fide  et  principiis  catholicae  fidei,"  in  which  he 
endeavors  to  maintain  his  position  that  Scripture  adds 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  third  to  the  Father  and  Son,  and  intro- 


224 


NOTES, 


duces  these  words  :  Tpcti  eartv  bi  jiaprvpovvTe;.  b  nariip,  b  \uyoi  nal  rd 
irvtvfia  TO  tiyiov.        He    OmitS    iv  T(~«  oipavui    and     bvrot  hi   rpeis  'iv  ticrtv. 

But  a  few  more  efforts  would  soon  produce  the  text  as  now 
received.  Accordingly,  in  the  next  or  15th  century,  we 
find  another  Greek  monk,  Joseph  Bryennius,  quoting  the 
very  words  of  the  received  text  with  the  exception  of 
TO  rrvcvixa  to  ayfov  instead  of  to  ayiov  irvzvfia.  And  it  is  remarka- 
ble, that  in  the  omission  of  the  last  clause  kuX  hi  Tpin  ds  to  kt> 
siaiv  in  the  8th  verse,  and  in  the  reading  h  Xpiarog  laTiv  h  iMQtia 
in  the  6th,  the  quotation  agrees  with  the  Vulgate  ;  and 
therefore  there  is  considerable  reason  for  suspecting  that 
it  was  formed  by  the  aid  of  that  version.  The  same  coin- 
cidence is  to  be  seen  in  the  Montford  manuscript. — Who- 
ever wishes  to  examine  this  subject  more  fully  may  consult 
the  Diatribe  above  mentioned,  Bengel's  Apparatus  Criti- 
cus,  pp.  452 — 481,  MicHAELis'  Introduction,  Vol.  iv.  Part 
ii.  pp.  412 — 442,  Horne's  Introduction,  Vol.  iv.  pp.  462 
— 487,  and  the  authors  there  referred  to. 

NOTE    X. 

For  an  account  of  the  labors  of  Origen  and  Jerome, 
see  Jahn's  Introduction,  Part  i.  pp.  51,  ss.  75,  ss.,  and  the 
authors  there  referred  to,  to  which  add  Masch's  edition  of 
Le  Long's  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

NOTE    XI. 

As  the  author  more  than  once  introduces  the  name  of 
Father  Simon  with  terms  of  unqualified  approbation,  it 
seems  proper  to  add  here  a  caution,  for  the  benefit  chiefly 
of  the  young  and  inexperienced  reader.  It  is  not  to  be 
denied,  that  Simon  was  a  critic  of  prodigious  learning,  but 
his  judgment  in  applying  it  is  very  questionable.  His  re- 
presentations of  certain  phenomena  connected  with  the  cri> 


NOTES.  225 

ticism  and  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  are  partial,  and  appear 
to  border  on  extravagance,  to  say  the  least ;  and  not  a  few 
of  the  conclusions  which  he  draws  from  them,  are  forced 
and  illogical.  The  unwary  reader  of  his  works  might  easi- 
ly be  led  to  suppose,  that  the  authenticity  of  several  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  certainty  of  the  interpreta- 
tion of  them  as  they  exist  in  the  Hebrew  originals,  are  sub- 
jects very  much  involved  in  the  mists  of  obscurity  and  doubt. 
Thus,  according  to  his  prepossessions,  he  might  be  led 
either  to  scepticism,  or  to  Roman  Catholic  views  of  the 
infallibility  of  the  church. 

The  translator  avails  himselfofthis  occasion  to  add,  that 
although  Dr.  Planck  was  not  of  the  neological  or  rationalist 
school  of  Germany,  yet  he  often  speaks  too  favorably  of 
those  writers  whose  interpretations  are  thought  by  very  able 
critics  to  be  frequently  loose,  too  much  accommodated  in 
the  Old  Testament  to  Jewish  views,  which  thus  sometimes 
influenced  their  expositions  in  the  New.  I  refer  to  such  com- 
mentators as  Grotius,  Le  Clerc,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis.  The 
reader  is  hereby  cautioned  against  acquiescing  entirely  in  all 
the  sentiments  of  the  author  relating  to  those  writers. 

NOTE    XII. 

The  same  charge  was  advanced  against  Mill.  His 
collection  of  various  readings  would  destroy,  it  was  ima- 
gined, the  authority  of  the  sacred  text,  and  this  extraor- 
dinary supposition  is  maintained  by  Whitby,  in  his  Ex- 
amen  variarum  Lectionum  Millii,  which  was  printed  at 
London  in  8vo,  1720,  and  is  also  appended  to  the  second 
volume  of  his  Paraphrase  and  Commentary  on  the  New 
Testament,  fol.  1727.  Its  absurdity  must  be  evident  to 
every  reflecting  mind,  as  the  collecting  of  various  read- 
ings is  the  only  way  in  which  the  text  can  be  satisfacto- 
19* 


226 


NOTES. 


rily  settled.  This  is  conclusively  demonstrated  by  the 
learned  and  acute  Dr.  Richard  Bentley  in  his  Remarks  on 
Mr.  Collin's  Discourse  on  Free  Thinking.  The  6th  edi- 
tion of  this  able  work  was  printed  at  Cambridge,  in  1725. 
It  was  written  under  the  assumed  nameof  Phileleutherus 
LiPsiENSis,  that  is,  in  the  explanation  of  the  author  himself, 
"  a  Free  Thinker  of  Leipzig."  This  book  is  worth  the 
attentive  reading  of  every  scholar,  and  especially  of  the 
biblical  critic. 

Further  information  on  the  subject  of  this  chapter  and 
on  other  points  connected  with  sacred  criticism,  may  be 
found  in  the  first  twelve  of  Bishop  Marsh's  Lectures  on 
Divinity,  delivered  in  Cambridge  as  Margaret  Professor. 
This  work  is  very  accessible  to  an  English  reader,  and  may 
be  read  by  the  young  student  with  much  profit,  as  introduc- 
tory to  a  course  of  critical  study. 

It  cannot  have  escaped  the  reader's  observation  that  the 
latter  part  of  the  author's  sketch  relates  principally  to  the 
history  of  sacred  philology  and  criticism  in  his  own  coun- 
try.  The  names  of  a  few  of  the  most  distinguished  Eng- 
lish writers  on  these  subjects,  shall  be  given  in  subsequent 
notes,  as  the  subjects  of  them  may  require.  A  complete 
catalogue  would  have  swelled  this  work  far  beyond  its  in- 
tended limits.  Such  an  one  may  be  found  in  other  books, 
and  especially  in  Dr.  Horne's  Introduction,  sixth  edition. 
Vol.  ii.  Part  ii.  Appendix. 

NOTE    XIII. 

The  same  author  afterwards  published  a  larger  work  in 
five  volumes,  8vo,  far  superior  to  any  of  the  kind  that  pre- 
ceded it :  Novus  Thesaurus  Philologico-criticus  in  Septua- 
ginta  et  reliquos  Interpretes  Graecos  ac  Scriptores  Apocry- 
phos  Veteris  Testamenti.     Lipsiae,  1820 — 1. 


NOTES.  227 


NOTE    XIV. 

In  addition  to  the  sources  referred  to  by  the  author  the 
common  and  Macedonian  dialect,  as  found  in  many  of  the 
later  Greek  writers  may  be  mentioned.  See  the  treatise  of 
Planck  referred  to  in  Notes  ii,  and  v.  Also  Fischer's 
Prolusiones  de  vitiis  Lexicorum  Novi  Testamenti,  and  F. 
W.  Sturz  de  dialecto  Macedonica  et  Alexandrina,  8vo. 
Lips.  1808. 

NOTE    XV. 

Another  Lexicon  made  its  appearance  in  1822,  at  Leip- 
zig, with  the  following  title  :  Clavis  Novi  Testamenti  Phi- 
lologica,  usibus  Scholarum  et  juvenum  Theologiae  studio- 
sorum  accommodata,auctore  M.  Christ.  Abrahamo  Wahl. 
This  is  a  more  accurate  work  than  Schleusner's,  especially 
in  the  account  of  prepositions  and  particles.  The  author 
seems  to  have  paid  more  attention  to  the  results  which  the 
latest  efforts  in  Greek  literature  have  produced,  and  to  be 
well  versed  in  the  pure  classic,  the  common,  and  the  He- 
braistic Greek,  all  of  which  he  has  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  New  Testament.  This  lexicon  has  been  translated  into 
English  by  '  Edward  Robinson,  A.  M.  (now  D.  D.  lately) 
Assistant  Instructor  in  tlie  department  of  Sacred  Literature, 
Theol.  Sem.  Andover.'  It  is  in  one  volume  royal  8vo.  and 
is  considerably  improved.  The  theological  student  will  find 
this  to  be  the  most  convenient  Lexicon  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  also  the  cheapest  he  can  procure.  The  translator 
announces  his  intention  of  preparing  and  publishing  a  new 
edition  of  his  work  ;  revised  and  improved  by  the  use  of  the 
Lexicons  of  Bretsciineider,  Passow  andothers,  of  the  late 
ablest  commentators  and  grammarians,  and  by  the  results  of 


228  NOTES. 

his  own  investigations.     He  hopes  to  be  able  to  complete 
the  work  in  the  course  of  the  present  year. 

NOTE    XVI. 

For  an  account  of  the  Greek  versions  above  mentioned, 
see  Jahn's  Introduction,  pp.  51 — 63,  and  the  authors  there 
referred  to;  also  Masch's  Le  Long.  Bahrdt's  work  is 
said  by  Jahn  to  abound  with  errors.  He  adds  :  "  In  the 
last  century,  several  learned  men,  particularly  Semler, 
Scharfenberg,  Dcederlein,  Matthaei,  Bruns,  Adler,  Schleus- 
ner,  Loesner,  and  Fischer,  corrected  many  parts  of  the 
preceding  collections,  and  increased  them  by  large  addi- 
tions. It  is  much  to  be  wished  that  all  were  published  in  a 
single  collection." 

NOTE    XVII. 

To  the  works  mentioned  in  the  text  may  be  added  the 
following  :  An  Inquiry  into  the  present  state  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  Version  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Henry  Owen,  Rector  of  St.  Olave,  Hart-street,  and  Fellow 
of  the  Royal  Society,  8vo.  London,  1769. 

NOTE    XVIII. 

For  some  notice  of  the  Targums,  see  Jahn,  pp.  64 — 68, 
and  the  authors  there  mentioned,  with  Le  Long. — An  ac- 
count of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which  the  author  both 
here  and  elsewhere  erroneously  mentions  as  a  "  version," 
may  also  be  found  in  Jahn,  pp.  135 — 141,  and  Le  Long. 

A  new  Polyglot  in  one  splendid  folio  volume  has  lately 
made  its  appearance  under  the  following  title.  Biblia  Sa- 
cra Polyglotta,  textu  sarchetypos  versionesque  praecipuas, 
necnon  versiones  recentiores,   Anglicanum,  Germanicam, 


NOTES.  229 

Italicam,  Gallicam  et  Hispanicam  complectentia.  Acce- 
dunt  Prolegomena  in  textuuni  archetyporum  versionumque 
antiquarum  crisin  literalem,  auctore  Samuele  Lee,  S.  T.  B. 
&.C.  Londini,  sumptibus  Samuelis  Bagster,  1831.  In 
this  Polyglot  the  Hebrew  is  from  Van  der  Hooght's  edi- 
tion, the  Hebrew  New  Testament,  by  William  Green- 
field ;  the  Septuagint,  from  the  Vatican  of  Cardinal  Cara- 
FA ;  the  Greek  Testament,  according  to  the  received  text ; 
the  Vulgate  from  the  editions  of  Sixxus  V  and  Clement 
VIII.  The  English  translation  is  accompanied  with  mar- 
ginal readings  and  parallel  places  ;  the  German  is  that  of 
Luther  ;  the  French,  of  Ostervald  ;  the  Italian,  of 
DiODATi ;  the  Spanish  of  Father  Scio. — An  appendix  is 
also  added,  containing  the  New  Testament  in  Syriac,  the 
Peshito,  according  to  Widmanstadt's  edition  of  1555, 
with  a  collation  of  the  edition  published  by  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society ;  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
according  to  Kennicott's  edition ;  various  readings  of  the 
Septuagint,  from  Grabe's  edition  ;  and  a  collection  of  various 
readings  of  the  New  Testament,  from  Griesbach. — The 
whole  work  is  exceedingly  beautiful,  but  in  so  small  a 
type  as  to  make  the  use  of  it  very  inconvenient. 

The  Prolegomena  to  this  work  are  a  series  of  learn- 
ed disquisitions  on  the  various  topics  connected  with  bib- 
lical criticism.  As  they  have  been  printed  in  a  small 
quarto  volume  of  75  pages,  and  can  be  obtained  (I  be- 
lieve) separately  from  the  Bible,  I  add  the  following  no- 
tice of  the  subjects  discussed,  in  order  that  the  reader  may 
have  a  general  idea  of  their  contents. 

Prol.  I.  Sect  i.  De  Scripturis  sacris,  earumque  reve- 
latione,  indole,  scopo,  ^c.  Sect.  ii.  De  lingua  qua  primi- 
tus  patefactae  sunt  Scripturae  Sacrae,  ejusque  antiquitate, 
natura  atque  usu.     Sect.  iii.  De  Sacri  textus  originibus, 


230  NOTES. 

atque  conservafione.  Sect,  iv.  De  sacrarum  scripturarum 
fatis  durante  theocratia.  Sect.  v.  De  statu  sacri  textus, 
Judaeis  in  Babylonia  degentibus.  Sect.  vi.  De  Christianis- 
mi  ortu,  ejusque  in  sacras  literas  vi  effectrice.  Sect.  vii. 
De  masorae  origine  et  incremeniis.  Sect.  vili.  De  masora, 
qualis  sc.  sese  nunc  in  Bibliis  Rabbinicis  nobis  ob  oculos 
ponit.  Sect.  ix.  De  ablationibus  et  correctionibus  e  scribis 
factis.  Sect.  x.  De  vocibus  quibusdam  legendis,  quamvis 
in  textu  scriptse  non  reperiantur.  Sect.  xi.  De  ea  masorae 
parte  quae  granimaiicen,  sive  inevpretationem  sacri  textus 
exegeticam,  spectat.  Sect.  xVi.  Comparatio  textus  He- 
braici  in  locis  quibusdam  Geneseos,  cum  Chaldaica  On- 
kelosi,  necnon  Syriaca  versione  quam  Pesbito  appellant, 
sparsis  hinc  inde  notis  criticis.  Sect.  xiii.  De  textus  He- 
braici  fatis  ab  anno  C.  N.  500,  ad  hunc  usque  diem.  Sect. 
xiv.  De  codicibus  Hebraicis  MSS.  in  India  Orientali  et 
Sina  reperiundis. — Prol.  II.  Sect.  i.  De  Pentateucho 
Samaritano,  ejusque  versionibus,  Samaritica,  Graeca,  et 
Arabica.  Sect.  ii.  De  versione  Samaritico-Chaldaica, 
ejusque  sequacibus,  Graeca  et  Arabica.  Sect.  iii.  Collatio 
versuum  quorundam  textus  Hebraici  editionis  Samaritanae, 
cum  versione  Chaldaico-Samaritica,  Chaldaica  Onkelosi,  et 
Arabica  Abu  Said. — Prol.  III.  Sect.  i.  De  versionibus 
Syriacis  Arabicisque  ex  iis  factis.  Sect.  ii.  De  versionibus 
Veteris  Foederis  Syriacis,  quae  e  Graeco  fuerint  cusae.  Sect. 
iii.  De  recensione  Karkaphensi  Syriaca.  Sect.  iv.  De 
Novi  Foederis  versione  Syra,  Peshito  dicta.  Sect.  v.  De 
versionibus  Syriacis,  Philoxeniana  et  Hierosolymitana. 
Sect.  vi.  De  versionibus  Arabica,  sc.  et  Persica  ex  Peshito 
Syrorum,  factis. — Prol.  IV.  Sect.  i.  De  Septuaginta  Grae- 
corum  versione  virali.  Sect.  ii.  De  operibus  criticis  Ori- 
OEMS,  Bibliis  sc.  Tetraplis,  Hexaplis,  &lc.  Sect.  iii.  De 
notis  Origenianis,  Aster isco,  Obelo,  Lemnisco,  Hypolem- 


NOTES.  231 

nisco.  Sect.  iv.  De  Aquila  ejusque  versionibus  S.  S.  Grse- 
cis.  Sect.  V.  De  Symmacho  versioneque  ejus  Grseca. 
Sect.  vi.  De  Theodotionis  versione.  Sect.  vii.  De  reliquis 
versionibus,  Quinta,  Sexta,  Septima,  Hexaplaribus.  Sect. 
viii.  De  versione  Graeca  Venetiis  baud  ita  pridem  reperta. 
— Prol.  V.  Sect.  i.  De  Vulgatis  Latinorum  versionibus, 
antiquiore  sc.  et  Hieronymiana.  Sect.  ii.  De  versione  Vul- 
gata  Latina  Hieronymiana. — Prol.  VI.  Sect.\.,'\\.  De  crisi 
Novi  Testamenti,  ejusque  textus  Grseci  statu  bodierno. — 
Mantissa.  De  interpretatione  scripturarum  sacrarum  exe- 
getica. 

NOTE    XIX. 

To  tbe  lexicographal  works  mentioned  by  the  author, 
the  following  are  added,  some  of  which  are  of  later  date 
than  that  of  his  publication.     Those  of  Avenarius,  Cala- 

SIO,  SCHINDLER,  CaSTELL,  RoBERTSON,  StOCKIUS,GuSSET, 

and  David  Levi,  with  some  others  of  less  authority,  are 
omitted. 

JoHANNis  BuxTORFii  Lcxicon  Chaldaicum,  Talmudi- 
cum  et  Rabbinicum,  folio,  Basil.  1640  This  most  labo- 
rious work  (opus  triginta  annorum,)  was  prepared  by  the 
father,  and  published,  with  some  improvements,  by  the  son. 
There  is  no  other  work  which  can  be  substituted  in  its 
place. 

Parkhurst's  Hebrew  Lexicon,  London,  1799,  large 
8vo.,  although  it  contains  much  learning,  is  superseded  by 
others  compiled  on  more  correct  philological  principles. 
The  author  rejects  the  use  of  the  points,  and  is  devoted  to 
the  philosophical  and  biblical  views  of  Hutchinson. 

A  compendious  Lexicon  of  the  Hebrew  language,  in 
two  volumes,  thick  12mo,  vol.  i,  containing  an  explanation 
of  every  word  which  occurs  in  the  Psalms,  with  notes  ;  vol. 


232  NOTES. 

ii,  being  a  Lexicon  and  Grammar  of  the  whole  language. 
By  Clement  C.  Moore,  (now  L.  L.  D.  and  Professor  of 
Oriental  and  Greek  Literature  in  the  general  Theological 
Seminary  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  church,)  New- York,  1809. — 
This  work  will  be  found  very  useful  to  a  beginner  in  He- 
brew, for  whom  it  is  principally  designed. 

Gesenius'  Hebrew  Lexicon,  in  German,  appeared  at 
Leipzig,  in  two  volumes,  8vo,  in  1810 — 12 ;  and  in  1815, 
the  author  published  at  the  same  place,  an  abridgment  of 
his  work,  with  some  improvements.  The  larger  lexicon 
was  translated  into  English  by  Christopher  Leo,  and 
published  in  two  Parts,  4to,  at  Cambridge,  (England,)  Part 
i,  in  1825,  and  Part  ii,  in  1828. 

In  1824,  the  Rev  Josiah  W.  Gibbs,  A.M.,  of  the  Theolo- 
gical Seminary,  Andover,  published  a  Hebrew  and  English 
Lexicon  of  the  Old  Testament,  including  the  Biblical  Chal- 
dee,  from  the  German  works  of  Gesenius  just  mentioned, 
with  improvements,  in  one  vol.  8vo.  This  valuable  work 
was  reprinted  in  London,  in  1827. 

In  1828,  Mr.  Gibbs,  now  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature 
in  the  Theological  School  in  Yale  College,  published  in 
Andover,  a  Manual  Hebrew  and  English  Lexicon,  includ- 
ing the  Biblical  Chaldee,  designed  particularly  for  begin- 
ners. This  Manual  is  intended  to  assist  students  of  He- 
brew, until  the  author  shall  be  able  to  prepare  a  second 
edition  of  his  larger  work  ;  which,  if  I  may  form  an  opinion 
from  a  printed  specimen  that  I  have  seen,  will  be  a  great 
improvement  of  the  first. 

Lexicon  Manuale  Hebraicum  et  Chaldaicum  in  Veteris 
Testamenti  libros,  post  editionem  Germanicam  tertiam 
Latine  elaboravit,  multisque  modis  retractavit  et  auxit  GuiL. 
Gesenius,  Philos.  et  Theol.  Doct.,  &lc.  Lipsije,  1833. 
Royal  8vo.     This  work  is  a  great  improvement  of  the  au- 


NOTES.  233 

thor's  former  work.  He  is  preparing  a  still  more  extensive 
Lexicon  in  Latin,  one  part  of  which  in  thin  4to,  appeared 
last  year. — The  reader  will  find  a  valuable  article  of 
Gesenius  translated  from  the  original  German,  "on  the 
sources  of  Hebrew  philology  and  lexicography"  in  the  Bib- 
lical Repository,  vol.  iii.  pp.  I.  ss. 

NOTE    XX. 

To  the  list  of  grammars  and  works  of  a  grammatical 
character  given  by  the  author,  the  following  must  be  added, 
as  they  are  among  the  most  important  for  an  English  stu- 
dent. 

A  Hebrew  grammar,  with  a  copious  Syntax  and  Praxis, 
by  Moses  Stuart,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Andover,  8vo.  1821. — This  work 
is  founded  chiefly  on  the  Hebrew  grammar  of  Gesenius. 
The  third  edition  considerably  condensed  and  improved, 
was  published  in  1828,  and  the  fourth  in  1831.  In  the 
mean  time  the  author  published  "Dissertations  on  the 
importance  and  best  method  of  studying  the  original 
languages  of  tlie  Bible,  by  Jahn,  Gesenius  and  Wythnn- 
RACH,"  translated  from  the  original  Latin,  8vo  Pamphlet, 
1821. 

In  1827,  the  Rev.  Samuel  Lee,  D.  D.  Professor  of  Ara- 
bic, and  since  regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  in  the  University 
of  Cambridge,  published  a  grammar  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, comprised  in  a  series  of  Lectures,  8vo.  The  learn- 
ed author  published  in  1832  a  second  edition  of  his  work 
enriched  with  much  original  matter. 

In  1829,  Professor  Stuart  published  at  Andover,  a  He- 
brew Chrestomathy,  designed  as  the  first  volume  of  a  course 
of  Hebrew  Study,  8vo.  A  second  volume  was  issued  in 
1830. 

20 


NOTES. 

A  Manual  Hebrew  Grammar,  for  the  use  of  beginners. 
By  J.  Seixas.  Andover,  1833,  8vo,  pp.  54. 

Winer's  Chaldee  Grammar,  to  which  is  appended  a 
Chrestomathy  or  Collection  of  portions  for  reading,  select- 
ed from  the  Targums,  is  a  very  useful  compilation.  The 
title  of  the  book  is  :  Grammatik  des  Biblischen  und  Tar- 
gumischen  Chaldaismus,  von  Dr.  Georg  Benedict  Winer, 
Leipzig,  1824,  8vo. 

A  Manual  of  the  Chaldee  language,  containing  a  Chal- 
dee Grammar,  chiefly  from  the  German  of  Professor  G.  B. 
Winer  ;  a  Chrestomathy,  consisting  of  selections  from  the 
Targums,  and  including  the  whole  of  the  biblical  Chaldee, 
with  notes ;  and  a  vocabulary  adapted  to  the  Chrestomathy, 
with  an  appendix  on  the  Rabbinical  character  and  style. 
By  Elias  Riggs,  A.  M.  Boston,  8vo,  1832. 

NOTE    XXI. 

Bishop  Lowth's  work  was  translated  into  English  by 
G.  Gregory,  F.  A.  S.,  and  published  with  the  principal 
notes  of  Michaelis  and  others  including  those  of  the  trans- 
lator, at  London,  in  two  vols.  8vo,  in  1787  and  again  in 
1816. — It  was  republished  at  Boston  in  one  vol.  in  1815, 
and  at  Andover  in  1829,  with  notes  by  Calvin  E.  Stowe, 
A.M. 

The  work  of  Herder  has  been  translated  into  English 
by  President  Marsh  of  Burlington  College.  It  will  short- 
ly be  published  in  two  volumes  12mo.  The  first  volume 
is  already  printed. 

NOTE    XXII. 

This  edition  of  Le  Long  contains  more  satisfactory  in- 
formation on  the  various  topics  connected  with  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Old  Testament  than  any  single  work  to  which 


NOTES.  235 

the  student  can  resort.  It  is  in  two  parts,  the  first  treating 
of  the  editions  of  the  original  text,  and  the  second  of  the 
versions  of  the  sacred  books.  Part  first  is  comprised  in 
one  volume,  quarto.  It  contains  a  Preface,  a  biographical 
sketch  of  Le  Long,  a  preliminary  dissertation  on  the  varie- 
ties in  Hebrew  manuscripts,  tables  exhibiting  different  read- 
ings in  various  editions  of  the  Bible,  and  a  particular  ac- 
count of  editions.  The  last  subject  occupies  nearly  three 
fourths  of  the  volume,  and  is  divided  into  four  chapters. 
The  first  gives  an  account  of  Hebrew  Bibles  entire,  wheth- 
er with  points  or  without ;  of  portions  of  the  Bible,  begin- 
ning with  the  Pentateuch,  first  the  Hebrew,  either  whole  or 
in  part,  and  then  the  Samaritan :  of  the  five  small  books, 
either  in  whole  or  in  part ;  of  the  prophets,  all  together,  or 
as  divided  into  former  and  later  ;  of  the  Hagiographa  uni- 
ted or  separate.  All  this  most  methodically  and  judiciously 
arranged,  is  comprehended  within  the  first  section.  In  the 
second  he  gives  a  similar  account  of  Hebrew  Bibles 
and  parts  of  Bibles,  with  Rabbinical  Commentaries  and 
Paraphrases  ;  and  in  the  third,  when  accompanied  by 
versions.  Chapter  second  relates  to  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  and  is  distinguished  by  the  same  order  and  mi- 
nuteness. The  third  chapter  gives  an  account  of  Poly- 
glots, and  the  fourth  of  the  editions  of  the  Apocryphal 
books. — Part  second  treats  of  the  versions  of  the  sacred 
books.  It  is  divided  into  three  volumes ;  the  first  giving 
an  account  of  the  Oriental  versions,  the  second  of  the 
Greek,  and  the  third  of  the  Latin.  An  appendix  is  added, 
containing  some  corrections  and  additions.  To  each  vo- 
lume a  chronological  index  is  subjoined. 


236  NOTES. 


NOTE    XXIII. 

This  Bible  of  Michaelis  is  particularly  valuable,  not 
only  for  its  general  accuracy,  but  principally  for  the  exten- 
sive and  useful  annotations  with  which  the  learned  and 
pious  editor  has  enriched  the  text,  and  especially  the 
Psalms  and  Prophets.  Rosenmueller  is  greatly  indebted 
to  him,  particularly  in  his  notes  on  the  minor  prophets. 
To  the  Bibles  mentioned  by  the  author  may  be  added 
the  celebrated  edition  of  Everard  Van  der  Hoouht, 
Amsterdam,  1705,  remarkable  for  the  beauty  of  its  typo- 
graphy. This  edition  has  become  very  scarce. — Also, 
Jahn's  Hebrew  Bible,  published  at  Vienna  in  1806  in  four 
vols.  8vo.,  with  the  following  title  :  "  Biblia  Hebraica  di- 
gessit  et  graviores  lectionum  varietates  adjecit,  Johannes 
Jahn,  Phil,  et  Theol.  Doct.  &c."  For  an  account  of  this 
edition  see  Horne,  vol.  ii.  part  ii.  appendix,  p.  8,  and 
Jahn's  Introduction,  p.  135." — A  very  neat,  and  it  is  said 
correct  edition,  was  published  in  1832  at  Leipsig,  by 
Dr.  Augustus  Hahn.  The  editor  has  followed  Van 
der  Hooght  principally.  At  the  end  of  the  book  he  has 
given  a  table  of  the  sections  into  which  the  Prophets  are 
divided,  and  a  Clavis  explanatory  of  Rabbinical  notes.  It 
is  the  cheapest  edition  that  can  be  procured. 

NOTE    XXIV. 

An  edition  of  Wetstein's  Prolegomena  was  published 
in  8vo,  at  Halle,  in  1764,  by  Joh.  Sal.  Semler,  who  ac- 
companied it  with  notes,  and  added  an  appendix  on  the 
older  Latin  recensions  in  various  manuscripts  and  speci- 
mens of  Greek  and  Latin  chirography. 


NOTES. 


237 


NOTE    XXV. 

As  it  is  exceedingly  desirable,  that  the  student  of  the 
Bible  should  acquire  some  knowledge  of  Syriac,  and  as 
this  may  be  done  with  a  very  moderate  degree  of  labor 
after  having  made  a  tolerable  acquaintance  with  Hebrew, 
it  might  be  proper  to  mention  a  few  books  most  useful  in 
pursuing  the  study  of  this  language.  But  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  appendix  to  a  "  Treatise  on  the  use  of  the 
Syriac  language,  by  John  David  Micuaelis,  translated 
from  the  German  by  John  Frederic  Sciiroeder,  A  M., 
an  assistant  minister  of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New- 
York,"  and  published  in  the  first  volume  of  Essays  and 
Dissertations  in  Biblical  Literature,  8vo,  p.  481 — 530  ;  and 
also  to  the  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  iii.  p.  21,  note*.  These 
two  works,  both  of  which  are  quite  accessible,  will  supply 
him  with  references  to  authors. 

NOTE    XXVI. 

This  opinion  was  generally  supposed  to  be  correct 
when  the  author  prepared  his  work.  It  was  founded 
"  partly  on  several  passages  in  the  prefaces  to  the  Complu- 
tensian  Bible,  in  which  the  editors  boast  of  having  received 
from  the  apostolic  library  of  Pope  Leo  X.  very  ancient  and 
valuable  manuscripts,  which  had  afforded  them  great  assist- 
ance ;  partly  on  some  expressions  of  Erasmus,  which  are  so 
construed  as  if  the  Pope  had  commanded  the  editors  of  this 
edition  to  follow  one  of  the  best  Vatican  manuscripts  in 
particular."  But  it  "  is  certain,  that  the  Complutensian 
Bible  very  frequently  differs  from  it,  and  therefore  we  can- 
not conclude  from  the  readings  of  the  one  to  those  of  the 
other."  Thus  far  Michaelis,  in  his  account  of  the  Vati- 
can manuscript.  Introduction,  Part  I.  vol.  ii.  pp.  348 — 9. 
20* 


238 


NOTES. 


Marsh,  on  the  passage  just  quoted,  (note  347,)  gives  a  spe- 
cimen of  readings  which  he  had  collected  from  the  Vatican 
manuscript  and  the  Complutensian  edition  on  the  first  three 
chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  from  which  it  appears  evident  that 
the  manuscript  could  not  have  been  "  ever  consulted  by  the 
editors  in  this  part  of  the  Greek  Testament";  and  the  same 
result  is  obtained  by  an  examination  of  other  portions. 
For  an  account  of  the  Complutensian  and  other  Polyglots, 
see  Masch's  Le  Long.  Part  i.  p.  331,  ss.  Horne's  Intro- 
duction, vol.  ii.  Part  ii.  appendix,  pp.  27.  ss.  edit.  vi. 

NOTE    XXVII. 

A  more  complete  account  of  this  controversy  may  be 
found  in  Marsh's  Michaelis,  ubi  sup.  pp.  431 — 442, 
with  the  notes. 

NOTE    XXVIII. 

If  the  reader  wishes  to  see  a  particular  account  of  the 
most  celebrated  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  that  were 
published  before  Griesbach's,  he  will  find  it  in  Marsh's 
MicHAELis,  vol.  ii.  Part.  i.  pp  429,  ss.,  Horne's  Introduc- 
tion, vol.  ii.  Part  ii.  Appendix  pp.  10,  ss.  and  Le  Long's  Bib- 
liotheca  Sacra,  Masch's  edition.  Part  i.  Cap.  ii.  pp.  189,  ss. 
A  brief  view  is  given  also  in  Marsh's  Lectures. 

As  the  edition  of  Griesbach  is  much  used,  and  has  given 
rise  to  considerable  discussion,  and  as  later  editors  of  great 
learning  and  acumen  have  differed  somewhat  from  this  dis- 
tinguished scholar  in  their  views  of  certain  important  prin- 
ciples, and  consequently  have  arrived  at  different  results ; 
it  may  not  be  unprofitable  to  lay  before  the  young  student, 
for  whom  principally  those  notes  are  intended,  a  general 
view  of  that  critic's  system,  together  with  a  few  of  the  most 
prominent  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  it. 


NOTES.  239 

Griesbach's  Prolegomena  is  divided  into  seven  sec- 
tions, of  which  the  following  is  an  outline. 

SECTION     I. 

The  first  section  examines  the  origin  and  authority  of 
the  commonly  received  text,  and  shows  that  a  new  recen- 
sion is  neither  improper  nor  unnecessary. 

The  author  tells  us,  that  before  the  publication  of  the 
received  text  in  the  Elzevir  edition,*  different  editors  fol- 
lowed different  authorities ;  some  made  use  of  Erasmus,  some 
of  the  Complutensian  text,  while  some  selected  from  both, 
and  availed  themselves  also  of  other  sources.  The  materi- 
als made  use  of  by  Erasmus  and  the  Complutensian  editors 
were  exceedingly  imperfect.  Their  manuscripts  were  few 
in  number,  and  comparatively  of  modern  date  and  little 
value.  They  wanted  the  best  and  most  ancient  manu- 
scripts ;  all  the  oriental  versions  also  with  the  Gothic  and 
Slavonic  ;  and  although  they  did  possess  a  Latin  transla- 
tion, it  was  not  the  Italic.  They  wanted  also  the  works  of 
the  Greek  fathers,  of  whom  Erasmus  in  his  second  edition 
mentions  only  Athanasius,  Nazianzen  and  Theophylact ; 
and  indeed  the  copies  of  the  fathers  which  they  did  possess 
al)Ounded  with  errors. 

They  were  also  unacquainted  with  the  proper  method  of 
using  even  the  imperfect  helps  within  their  reach.  They 
had  not  established  any  fixed  laws  of  criticism.  Hence  it 
is  that  Erasmus  in  his  fourth  edition  inserted  readings 
taken  from  the  Complutensian  text,  in  the  place  of  those 
which  he  had  before  introduced  into  his  third.  The  accu- 
racy of  this  text  is  suspected,  and  on  good  grounds ;  al- 
though it  may  be  difficult  to  say  how  far  its  inaccuracy  ex- 
tends.    It  is  plain,  that  in  some  places  the  editors  altered 

♦  Tills  edition  takes  its  name  from  the  printer,  who  is  celebrated  for 
the  beauty  of  his  impressions. 


240 


NOTES. 


and  interpolated  against  the  authority  of  their  own  manu- 
scripts, and  that  they  were  too  much  attached  to  the  Vul- 
gate version.  So  also  was  Erasmus,  who  in  his  last  edi- 
tions yielded  to  the  clamors  of  his  adversaries,  and  made 
alterations  on  the  doubtful  authority  of  the  Complutensian 
edition.  Since  the  time  of  these  editors  about  five  hundred 
Greek  manuscripts  had  been  discovered,  all  of  which  were 
unknown  to  them ;  and  a  more  enlarged  view  of  the  subject 
has  greatly  improved  the  ability  of  critics  to  employ  these 
materials  to  greater  advantage.  For  these  and  other  rea- 
sons, it  would  be  idle  to  suppose  that  they  ought  to  be  im- 
plicitly followed. 

The  author  then  proceeds  to  show  that  the  editions  of 
Stephens  also  are  not  to  be  relied  on,  and  that  as  works  of 
criticism  they  are  of  little  authority.  He  gives  an  account 
of  the  manuscripts  used  by  that  celebrated  editor,  and  con- 
siders his  /?'  as  the  same  with  the  Cambridge  manuscript, 
Beza's  account  of  which  is,  he  thinks,  erroneous. 

Beza's  New  Testament  of  1559  is  the  text  of  Stephens' 
fourth  edition  ;  his  subsequent  publications  were  compiled 
by  himself  He  had  better  helps  than  his  predecessors, 
among  which  may  be  found  the  Cambridge  and  Clermont 
manuscripts,  the  Syriac  version,  and,  in  some  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  Arabic.  But  Beza  did  not  make  a 
thorough  use  of  them,  and  Wetstein  has  shown  in  his  Pro- 
legomena that  he  cannot  be  vindicated  from  the  charge  of 
negligence.  He  has  expressed  his  approbation  of  readings 
not  introduced  by  him  into  the  text ;  and  sometimes  he  has 
introduced  readings  from  one  version  or  manuscript  only, 
and  sometimes  even  from  conjecture. 

The  Elzevir,  or,  received  text,  which  made  its  appear- 
ance in  1624,  is  not  founded  on  manuscripts,  but  follows 
the  third  or  fourth  edition  of  Stephens,  except  in  about  one 


NOTES.  241 

hundred  places,  in  most  of  which  it  follows  Beza.  Where 
it  differs  from  him,  the  authority  by  which  it  is  governed  is 
uncertain. 

The  received  text  then  is  founded  upon  those  of  Beza 
and  Stephens,  the  former  of  whom  followed  the  latter,  with 
tlic  exception  of  some  places  altered  according  to  his  own 
pleasure  and  without  sufficient  authority.  Stephens  pursu- 
ed the  track  of  Erasmus,  except  in  a  very  few  places  and 
in  the  Apocalypse,  where  he  preferred  the  Complutensian 
readings.  Erasmus  compiled  his  text,  as  he  could,  from  a 
very  small  number  of  manuscripts  and  those  rather  modern, 
without  any  other  helps  except  the  Vulgate  interpolated, 
and  inaccurate  editions  of  a  few  of  the  fathers. 

From  the  above  sketch  it  is  abundantly  evident,  that 
tlie  sanction  of  the  received  text  by  no  means  determines 
the  correctness  of  readings.  In  the  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centuries  about  twenty  editions  were  printed,  no  two 
of  which  entirely  agreed,  as  each  editor  corrected  and  al- 
tered the  text,  according  to  his  own  judgment,  acting 
on  the  testimony  before  him.  Through  the  diligence  of 
critics  it  has  been  proved,  that  the  oldest  manuscripts  and 
versions,  and  also  the  quotations  in  the  fathers,  differ  in 
words  and  phrases  and  sometimes  in  sentences,  while  they 
agree  in  important  and  fundamental  truths.  Nor  in  the 
former  is  uncertainty  the  necessary  consequence ;  but  some 
are  shown  to  be  certainly  preferable,  others  probably  so, 
and  those  which  require  further  investigation,  a  few  perhaps 
excepted,  of  little  moment. 

SECTION     II. 

This  section  states  the  design  which  the  author  had  in 
view  in  preparing  his  edition. 

His  intention  was,  to  collect  in  a  small  compass  the 


242  NOTES. 

critical  apparatus  which  lay  dispersed  in  various  works,  and 
to  prepare  an  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  which  should 
contain  a  text  freed  from  considerable  errors,  accompanied 
by  such  helps  as  might  facilitate  interpretation  ;  to  exhibit 
the  more  important  various  readings  and  the  authorities  on 
which  they  are  supported,  together  with  the  judgment  of 
the  editor  respecting  them  expressed  with  perspicuity,  and 
at  the  same  time  briefly  and  with  modesty. 

The  utility  of  such  a  work  for  students  of  theology  is 
unquestionable.  For  although  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  criticism  is  by  no  means  necessary  for  every  clergy- 
man, yet  every  one  ought  to  be  guarded  against  such  errors 
as  prevent  an  accurate  knowledge  and  proper  use  of  scrip- 
ture ;  and  this  does  certainly  require  some  acquaintance 
with  it.  Nothing  gives  greater  acuteness,  or  tends  more 
thoroughly  to  prepare  the  mind  for  interpretation  than  criti- 
cism. Many  places,  doubtless  corrupted  in  the  common 
editions,  cannot  be  correctly  understood  without  it.  Many 
also  have  given  rise  to  controversies  of  which  a  clergyman 
ought  not  to  be  ignorant,  as,  for  example,  those  connected 
with  the  true  readings  in  Acts  xx.  28.  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 
1  John  V.  7.;  but  in  order  to  form  a  sound  opinion  respecting 
such  places,  it  is  necessary  to  begin  by  examining  others 
which  are  of  less  importance.  To  all  this  it  maybe  added, 
that  a  critical  collection  of  various  readings  must  exhibit 
many  valuable  expositions  of  antiquity. 

I.  The  first  object  which  Griesbach  had  in  view  was, 
to  present  his  readers  with  a  text  as  correct  as  possible. 
Every  reading  of  any  moment  which  might  appear  prefera- 
ble to  the  received  is  placed  either  in  the  text  or  the  inner 
margin. — He  does  not  presume  that  his  edition  is  not  sus- 
ceptible of  improvement.  Far  from  it.  That  it  is  so  is 
clearly  evident  from  what  follows.     A  vast  number  of  manu- 


NOTES.  243 

scripts  have  been  collected  by  critics,  some  of  which  have 
been  examined  in  particular  places  only  or  in  a  hasty  man- 
ner; whereas,  if  the  examination  had  been  complete  and 
the  results  fully  made  known,  many  readings  which  are 
now  in  the  inner  margin,  would  probably  have  been  placed 
in  the  text.  The  ancient  versions  do  not  afford  a  critic  all 
the  aid  that  might  be  obtained  from  them  ;  a  Syriac  edition 
from  the  best  manuscripts  is  a  desideratum ;  the  Armenian 
is  suspected  of  varying  from  the  best  copies,  and  of  being 
adapted  to  a  more  modern  Greek  text ;  of  the  Sahidic  and 
Jcrusalem-Syriac  fragments  merely  have  been  published ; 
the  Slavonic  manuscripts  ought  to  be  carefully  examined, 
also  those  of  the  Old  Latin  version.  All  the  Greek  fathers 
should  be  examined,  as  Origen  is  in  the  SymbolrD  Criticae. 
The  origin,  the  primitive  characteristics,  and  the  changes 
of  each  recension,  have  not  been  sufficiently  investigated; 
nor  indeed  can  this  be  done,  until  further  extracts  shall 
have  been  made  from  the  fathers  :  when  therefore  different 
readings  occur  in  different  recensions  nearly  of  the  same 
antiquity  it  is  almost  impossible  to  determine  which  are 
genuine.  In  the  best  manuscripts,  interpolations,  the  ori- 
gin of  which  is  very  difficult  to  be  explained,  require  the  dili- 
gence and  acumen  of  future  critics.  These  considerations 
illustrate  the  extreme  difficulty  of  procuring  a  text  absolute- 
ly perfect. — He  remarks  further,  that  the  collections  of 
Mill,  Wetstein  and  others  are  imperfect ; — that  they  occa- 
sionally ascribe  to  manuscripts,  versions  and  fathers,  read- 
ings which  do  not  exist  in  them,  which  he  professes  to 
know  from  personal  examination  ; — that  later  editors  have 
corrected  errors  of  former,  and  later  still  will  correct  those 
into  which  their  predecessors  had  fallen;  and  this,  not  by 
following  any  one  manuscript,  but  by  investigating  the  pri- 
mitive readings  of  each  class. 


244  NOTES. 

II.  It  entered  into  the  editor's  design,  to  note  those 
readings  which,  although  not  preferred  by  him,  he  consi- 
dered as  of  equal  authority  with  those  retained,  or  nearly 
so  with  those  preferred  ;  those  also  which,  if  inferior,  are 
not  to  be  despised,  or  which  with  some  color  of  truth  might 
seem  probable  to  other  crhics.  These  he  has  separated 
from  the  mass,  and  appropriated  to  them  descriptive  marks, 
after  the  example  of  Bengel. 

III.  It  was  his  intention  also  to  subjoin  a  suitable  col- 
lection of  various  readings,  such  as  appeared  to  him  most 
worthy  of  notice.  They  are  of  the  following  character. 
Such  as  are  not  improbable  ; — such  as  may  assist  in  dis- 
tinguishing tlie  genuine  reading  from  interpolations  ; — such 
as  may  elucidate  the  history  of  the  Greek  text,  and  aid  in 
discovering  the  character  of  ancient  recensions  and  re- 
markable classes  ; — such  as  are  found  in  many  valuable 
books,  or  have  crept  into  some  editions,  or  have  remarkably 
changed  the  sense,  or  may  illustrate  the  forms  of  speech 
employed  by  the  sacred  writers.  Of  these  he  has  not  de- 
signedly omitted  one,  although  he  freely  grants,  that  some 
not  unworthy  of  attention  may  have  escaped  his  notice,  as 
must  be  the  case  in  every  attempt  to  reduce  within  a  small 
compass  such  an  immense  collection  of  various  readings. 
He  then  gives  a  view  of  his  plan  more  in  detail,  with  the 
names  of  the  authors  and  collators  whom  he  has  examined. 
For  the  benefit  of  younger  students,  he  has  introduced  a 
few  specimens  of  conjecture.*  Readings,  which  may  be 
classed  in  the  list  which  follows,  he  has  omitted.     Such  as 

*  See,  for  example,  Acts  vii.  14,  where,  to  remove  a  difficulty, 
Beza  conjectures  -navrei  to  be  the  true  reading,  instead  of  ttivtc. 
But,  as  Kkebs  has  remarked,  this  would  be  a  solecism,  as  grammati- 
cal correctness  would  require  Traauis.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
Griesbach  should  have  admitted  any  conjectures  bearing  on  funda- 
mental doctrine,  and  he  is  certainly  to  be  censured  for  having  allow- 
ed a  place  to  the  conjectural  reading  6sov  for  Oed;  in  John  i.  1,  of  the 
Socinian  Crellius. 


NOTES.  24l9 

are  found  in  but  few  manuscripts,  and  those  of  the  more 
modern  date ; — such  as  are  evidently  taken  from  parallel 
places  in  the  Gospels,  or  have  crept  into  the  text  from  lec- 
tionaries  ; — such  as  refer  to  orthography,  particularly  of 
proper  names,  or  to  the  order  of  the  words,  except  in  places 
where  the  order  affects  the  sense,  or  the  authority  of  a  word, 
or  where  the  best  manuscripts  agree  in  a  different  order 
from  the  received  ; — also,  unusual  forms  of  words  which 
forms  frequently  occur  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts ; — 
the  article  ; — the  participles  Xeywv  and  dwoKptdiis ; — and  very 
many  words,  which  are  often  commuted  in  manuscripts. 
In  these  cases  he  has  omitted  the  various  readings,  unless 
they  occurred  in  very  many  manuscripts,  or  in  some  of  the 
more  valuable,  or  else  certain  causes  existed  for  remarking 
a  difference  of  reading,  which  would  otherwise  be  of  no 
moment.  Some  readings,  which  are  found  very  often,  are 
only  noticed  at  their  first  occurrence. 

IV.  Although  the  author  did  not  intend  his  work  to  su- 
persede the  use  of  former  editions,  which  ought  to  be  con- 
sulted by  those  who  apply  themselves  to  criticism  or  wish 
thoroughly  to  investigate  the  authority  and  true  reading  of 
a  text ;  yet  he  did  expect  it  to  supply  in  some  measure 
the  want  of  them. 

V.  Lastly  :  it  was  not  so  much  his  object  to  augment 
and  correct  the  collection  of  readings  made  by  his  prede- 
cessors, as  to  make  a  proper  use  of  them. 

SECTION      III. 

In  this  section  Griesbach  presents  a  view  of  the  more 
important  critical  observations  and  rules  by  which  he  was 
governed. 

In  examining  various  readings  the  internal  goodness  is 
to  be  regarded  as  well  as  the  weight  and  consent  of  testi- 
21 


246 


NOTES. 


mony.  Internal  goodness  is  determined  by  the  fact,  that  a 
particular  reading  suits  the  manner,  style,  scope,  and  other 
circumstances  of  the  author  ;  or  by  this,  that  it  can  be  shown 
to  be  probable,  that  all  others  have  sprung  from  it.  In  apply- 
ing this  latter  criterion,  we  must  keep  in  mind  the  general 
causes  which  lead  transcribers  into  error,  and  also  the  parti- 
cular causes  which  affect  transcribers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  especially  that  arising  from  the  difference  of  its 
style  from  that  of  classic  Greek.  From  that  canon  of  cri- 
ticism which  prefers  the  reading  which  will  account  for  the 
origin  of  the  others  with  the  greatest  facility,  the  following 
rules,  among  others,  are  deduced. 

1.  A  shorter  reading  is  preferable  to  a  longer  and  more 
verbose,  unless  destitute  of  ancient  and  weighty  authority. 
The  reason  is,  that  transcribers  have  always  been  more  dis- 
posed to  add  to  the  text  than  to  omit  what  belongs  to  it,  and 
it  is  more  likely  that  incidental  circumstances  should  give 
rise  to  additions  than  to  omissions.  He  goes  on  to  show 
particularly  in  what  cases  either  is  to  be  preferred.* 

2.  The  more  difficult  and  obscure  reading  is  superior  to 

one  extremely  plain. t 

*  Those  readings  which  are  evidently  glosses  on  the  text,  although 
they  are  afterwards  mentioned  by  Griesbach,  very  properly  come 
under  this  rule.  Comp.  John  iii.  0,  where,  after  the  words  cdp^  can, 
one   Greek  manuscript,  a  prima  manu,  and  some  other  authorities 

add,    on    Ik   Ti]i   aapKos    iycvvi'jDr}  ;    and  after  TTfiv^a  ian,  the   words   on  Ik 

Tov  Trrtu^arof  tanv.  In  Eph.  i.  6,  after  >jyo7r)7/(fi/f.),  the  Clermont  manu- 
script a  prima  manu,  and  three  others  written  in  uncial  letters,  with 
several  of  the  versions  and  fathers,  read  vn^  airoii.  In  Col.  ii.  11, 
T(T>i'  anapTv~>v  is  wanting  in  ABCD  [\\\e  last  a  prima  manu.)  and  three 
other  manuscripts  in  uncial  characters,  besides  most  of  tlie  ancient 
versions  and  fathers ;  and  it  seems  to  be  an  addition  to  the  text, 
introduced  in  order  to  explain  tuv  mJ^MToi  n'n  aap^oi.  So  also  in 
2  Peter,  i.  10,  after  (7/ri)i)(5a<jar£,  several  manuscripts  and  versions  read, 

li/ti  <5io  7(01/  KoXotv  ({i/i.iji')  cpyov   f3c,Saiai'   vi.:o>ii  ri'n'  K\>i<nv  Kai  iK\oyriii  ■noXtjcOc, 

and  in  Gal.  v.  8,  a  few  introduce  Oeov  as  explanatory  of  Ka\oivTOi.  It 
is  unnecessary  to  multiply  instances  of  this  kind,  which  are  of  very 
frequent  occurrence. 

t  Thus,  for  instance,  in  John  vii.  8,  he  considers  ovk  dva^ahw  as 
preferable  to  ovjtw,  although  this  is  the  reading  of  some  manuscripts 


NOTES.  247 

3.  The  harsher  reading  that  for  instance  which  is  ellip- 
tical, or  which  contains  a  Hebraism  or  a  solecism,  is  pre- 
ferable to  the  smoother.* 

4.  The  less  usual  to  the  more  common. 

5.  The  less  emphatic  phraseology  to  the  contrary,  un- 
less the  context  and  design  of  the  writer  require  empha- 
sis.f 

6.  That  reading  is  to  be  preferred,  which  conveys  a 
sense  seeming  at  first  incorrect,  but  upon  careful  exami- 
nation proved  to  be  true.| 

7.  Readings  which  may  be  traced  to  an  inclination  of 
transcribers  to  introduce  terminations  which  they  had  just 
written  or  were  about  to  write,  are  of  no  authority ;  nor 
those  which  arise  from  connected  words  beginning  with 
the  same  syllable  or  letter. 

and  many  versions.  Upon  the  same  principle,  dvroiv  in  Luke  ii.  22, 
is  better  than  avrSv  or  awnjf,  for  both  of  which  authority  may  be 
adduced.  But  it  is  necessary  to  guard  against  an  extravagant 
application  of  this  rule,  as  a  reading  is  certainly  not  to  be  suspected 
because  it  is  easy.  In  Matt.  xix.  17,  the  received  text  has,  ri  f,c  Xtytij 
dyaddv ;  ovScU  d^^adog,  it  fin  Its,  (S  0£of.  This  reading  is  probably  the 
best,  while  that  admitted  by  Griesbach  is  hardly  intelligible,  ri  fit 

ipoyrai  -ntoX  rii   dyaOoxi;    lif   turtv  h  dyadoi.      Besides,   this   readintr   looks 

very  like  a  gloss,  written  on  the  margin  by  some  early  transcriber, 
in  whose  copy  the  dyadl  of  v.  16,  (the  authority  of  which  is  doubt- 
ful,) had  been  lost. 

*  The  harsher  reading  ecrKv\iicvoi  in  Matt.  ix.  36,  is  to  be  preferred 
to  the  smoother  cKXcXviicvot.  The  same  passage  may  be  adduced  to 
illustrate  the  next  rule. 

t  Comp.  Gal.  vi.  15,  where  iariv  is  probably  the  genuine  reading, 
in  place  of  which  the  more  emphatic  ia^t<ct  has  been  introduced. 

t  This  rule  le  illustrated  by  John  i.  28,  where  BnOavla,  the  true 
reading  has  been  displaced  in  many  manuscripts,  versions  and 
fathers,  to  make  room  for  Brjdnfiapii.  This  has  arisen  from  sup- 
posing that  Bethany  cannot  be  the  place  meant,  because  it  was  near 
Jerusalem  ;  as  if  there  could  not  be  two  or  more  towns  of  the  same 
name.  Comp.  Michaelis,  Part  I,  Chap.  x.  Sect.  iii.  V(  1.  II.  pp. 
3!)'J.  ss.  It  is  probable,  that  the  difference  between  the  Hebrew  text 
of  Exod.  xii.  40,  and  the  reading  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and 
the  Septuatfint,  may  be  accounted  for  on  the  same  principle.  A 
Bupposed  dirticulty  seems  to  have  given  rise  to  the  latter. 


248  NOTES. 

8.  When  several  readings  occur  of  the  same  place,  that 
is  to  be  esteemed  the  best,  which  may  be  called  the 
medium,  from  which  all  the  others  may  be  shown  to  have 
originated. 

9.  Those  readings  are  to  be  rejected  which  it  is  admitted 
were  introduced  into  the  text  from  the  commentaries  of 
fathers  or  old  scholiasts.  Although  the  more  modern 
copies  chiefly  have  been  injured  by  interpolations,  yet  there 
is  no  manuscript,  however  ancient,  that  is  entirely  free 
from  glosses ;  and  many  have  flowed  from  the  commenta- 
ries and  catenae  of  the  fathers  written  on  the  margin.  Still 
the  rule  is  to  be  applied  with  great  caution  ;  and  it  is  al- 
ways to  be  recollected,  that  the  agreement  of  a  manuscript 
with  scholia  will  by  no  means  prove  it  to  have  been  cor- 
rupted by  the  scholia,  as  the  agreement  may  have  sprung 
from  other  causes. 

10.  Those  readings  which  have  arisen  in  lectionaries, 
and  add  or  remove  or  alter  a  passage,  whether  to  introduce 
the  lesson  or  to  diminish  difficulties,  are  to  be  rejected. 
But  here  the  same  caution  must  be  exercised  as  in  the  for- 
mer rule. 

11.  Lastly  :  those  are  to  be  condemned  which  have 
found  their  way  into  Greek  copies  from  the  Latin  version. 
This  rule,  which  is  very  sound  and  correct,  has  been  greatly 
abused  by  some  learned  men,  who,  whenever  they  disco- 
vered a  reading  differing  from  that  of  the  common  mass 
of  books  and  agreeing  with  the  Latin  version,  immediately 
inferred  that  the  manuscript  containing  it  latinized.  But 
to  prove  such  interpolation,  other  marks  are  necessary  be- 
side mere  consent. 

After  giving  these  rules,  with  two  or  three  others,  which 
are  here  passed  over,  to  ascertain  the  internal  goodness 
of  a  reading,  Griesbach  examines  on  what  the  authority 


NOTES. 


249 


of  testimonies  is  supported.     There  must  be  weight  and 

CONSENT. 

The  weight  of  testimony  is  determined  partly  by  age, 
and  partly  by  other  favorable  circumstances.  The  age  is 
not  to  be  inferred  simply  or  principally  from  that  of  the 
parchments.  It  is  the  antiquity  of  the  text,  and  not  of  the 
transcriber,  which  is  important ;  and  this  is  ascertained  by  its 
frequent  agreement  with  other  witnesses,  particularly  ver- 
sions and  fathers  whose  age  is  well  known.  There  are  manu- 
scripts, the  text  of  which  is  composed  sometimes  of  ancient 
and  sometimes  of  more  modern  readings,  and  it  is  necessary 
to  examine  them  with  caution,  and  not  to  infer  the  high  an- 
tiquity of  their  text  from  a  few  readings.  Further,  a  manu- 
script may  be  of  great  antiquity  and  excellence,  and  yet  in  cer- 
tain places  it  may  be  corrupted  by  lectionaries  or  by  the  Latin 
version ;  still,  in  those  parts  where  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect 
any  corruption,  it  may  have  great  weight.  Although  the  learn- 
ing and  ability  of  a  transcriber,  and  the  fact  of  his  having 
used  a  good  and  ancient  copy,  are  circumstances  which 
ought  to  carry  with  them  great  authority ;  yet  it  is  evidently 
necessary  to  apply  them  with  no  small  care.  It  is  the  cha- 
racter of  the  copy  alone  which  generally  assists  in  deter- 
mining the  question,  from  what  manuscript  it  was  trans- 
cribed ;  then  again,  the  manuscript,  although  old,  may  have 
been  corrupted,  and  where  it  is  so  the  transcriber's  fidelity 
is  of  no  importance. — The  errors  of  a  transcriber  are  readi- 
ly distinguishable  from  tlie  original  readings,  by  separating 
those  peculiar  to  the  manuscript  from  others  which  it  has 
in  common  with  many  manuscripts. 

With  respect  to  the  consent  of  testimonies,  it  is  import- 
ant to  remark,  that  this  must  not  be  identified  with  the  ex- 
hibition of  the  same  reading  by  a  great  number  ;  it  is  ne- 
cessary that  they  be  really  different  witnesses.     There  are 
21* 


2dG 


NOTES. 


above  a  hundred  manuscripts  of  the  gospels,  which,  being 
derived  from  one  source,  agree  in  almost  every  sylla- 
ble, with  the  exception  of  such  readings  as  are  caused  by 
errors  of  copyists,  and  others  arising  from  peculiar  causes. 
Hence  then  the  necessity  of  distributing  testimonies  into 
classes. 

The  author  informs  us  in  his  preface,  that  his  plan  of 
distinguishing  from  each  other  the  different  recensions  of 
the  Greek  text,  which  from  the  commencement  of  the  third 
century  at  least  have  existed, — of  separating  as  far  as  pos- 
sible the  primitive  readings  of  each  recension  from  later  in- 
terpolations,— of  distributing  manuscripts,  versions  and  fa- 
thers into  different  classes  according  to  the  difference  of 
the  recension  which  each  one  followed, — of  reckoning  all 
the  witnesses  of  one  class,  whether  many  or  few,  as  one  wit- 
ness only, — and  of  attributing  to  each  recension  its  legiti- 
mate importance, — was  suggested  by  Bengel  and  com- 
menced by  Semler.  In  his  Prolegomena  he  proceeds  as 
follows. 

Recensions  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  exist,  as 
also  of  many  Latin  and  Greek  works.  The  want  of  proper 
records  makes  it  impossible  to  trace  the  history  of  these  re- 
censions. A  comparison  of  Origen  with  Tertullian  and 
Cyprian  proves,  that  at  least  in  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century  there  were  two.  That  which  after  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  Origen,  the  Alexandrians  used,  may  be 
called  the  Alexandrine  ;  the  other,  which  from  the  time 
of  Tertullian  was  made  use  of  in  Africa,  Italy,  Gaul,  and 
other  occidental  countries,  the  western,  although  its  use 
was  not  confined  to  the  western  part  of  the  empire.  From 
each  of  these  recensions,  in  the  gospels,  (to  which  the 
author  confines  his  remarks,)  differs  the  text  of  A,  which 
agrees  sometimes  with  the  Alexandrine  recension,  some- 


NOTES. 


261 


times  with  the  Western,  sometimes  with  both  together, 
but  very  often  varies  from  both,  and  approximates  some- 
what nearer  the  received  text.  With  this  manuscript 
others  are  kindred,  tliat  are  marked  E  F  G  H  S,  which 
however  have  very  many  modern  readings  and  are  also 
much  more  closely  allied  to  the  received  text.  All  these, 
(A  E  F  G  H  S,)  seem  to  agree  in  the  gospels,  so  far  as 
imperfect  collations  enable  us  to  ascertain,  with  the  fathers 
of  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  and  of  the  fifth  and 
sixth  centuries  in  Greece,  Asia  Minor  and  that  vicinity  : 
this  may  be  called  the  Constantinopolitan  recension, 
because  it  was  most  generally  used  in  that  patriarchate,  and 
there  widely  disseminated  by  means  of  numberless  copies. 
From  it  came  the  Slavonic  version.  The  Syriac  version,  as 
we  have  it  in  printed  editions,  is  not  like  any  of  these  recen- 
sions ;  but  neither  is  it  altogether  unlike  any.  In  many  of 
its  readings  it  agrees  with  the  Alexandrine,  in  more  with 
the  Western,  and  in  some  with  the  Constantinopolitan,  yet 
at  the  same  time  it  rejects  most  of  those  which  found  their 
way  into  this  recension  in  later  ages.  It  seems  therefore 
to  have  been  at  different  periods  again  and  again  revised, 
according  to  Greek  manuscripts  evidently  different. 

In  addition  to  manuscripts  which  exhibit  one  of  these 
ancient  recensions,  some  contain  a  text  compiled  from  the 
readings  of  two  or  three.  This  is  probably  the  case  also 
with  the  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  Sahidic,  and  Jerusalem-Syri- 
ac  versions. 

That  the  observations  already  made  may  be  tlie  more 
useful  in  assisting  the  reader  to  form  an  estimate  of  read- 
ings eitlier  belonging  to  one  recension  or  common  to  more, 
the  author  lays  down  a  few  premonitions. 

1.  It  is  necessary  for  a  critic  to  be  well  acquainted  with 
the  characteristics  of  a  recension,  with  whatever  makes  it 


252  NOTES. 

more  or  less  valuable.  The  Alexandrine  acts  the  gramma- 
rian ;  the  Western  the  expositor,  and,  by  no  means  unfre- 
quently  without  success. 

2.  No  recension  is  to  be  found  unaltered,  in  any  manu- 
script now  extant.  The  causes  of  this  are  briefly  but  clearly 
stated.  Yet  errors  in  one  manuscript  are  not  to  be  ascri- 
bed to  the  whole  recension. 

3.  It  is  of  very  great  importance  to  discover  the  primi- 
tive reading  of  each  recension.  This  is  to  be  done  by  com- 
paring all  the  manuscripts,  fathers  and  versions  of  the 
same  recension,  and  by  selecting  from  among  their  read- 
ings that  which  is  most  strongly  recommended,  both  by  tes- 
timonies of  higher  antiquity  and  by  internal  marks  of  good- 
ness. 

4.  Before  the  genuineness  of  one  reading  among  many 
can  be  determined,  we  must  examine  to  what  recension 
any  one  is  to  be  referred.  The  inquiry  is  not, — how  many 
manuscripts  now  existing  agree  in  any  reading  ;  but, — 
what  ancient  recensions  originally  exhibited  that  reading  : 
for  all  the  testimonies  of  the  same  recension  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  one,  and  therefore  two  or  three  manuscripts  may 
be  of  as  much  weight  as  a  hundred  others,  because  some 
recensions  are  preserved  in  a  few  only,  others  in  a  great  num- 
ber. Greek  manuscripts  were  but  seldom  written  in  the 
Western  provinces  after  the  fourth  century,  and  in  Egypt 
after  the  sixth  ;  but  in  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople, 
the  Greek  monks  were  indefatigable  in  multiplying  copies 
of  the  New  Testament  until  the  fifteenth. 

5.  If  all  the  old  recensions  originally  agreed  in  any 
reading,  it  is  undoubtedly  the  true  one,  even  if  afterwards 
another  should  have  been  introduced  into  a  multitude  of 
more  modern  manuscripts. 

C.  If  all  the  recensions  did  not  originally  agree  in  the 


I 


NOTES.  253 

same  reading,  that  which  has  the  support  of  the  most 
ancient  is  the  best,  unless  there  be  special  circumstan- 
ces to  the  contrary  arising  from  the  character  of  the  re- 
cension. 

7.  From  the  consent  of  the  Alexandrine  recension  with 
the  Western,  is  it  concluded  on  very  good  grounds,  that  a 
reading  common  to  both  is  by  far  the  most  ancient,  and  in- 
deed, if  supported  by  its  internal  goodness,  genuine.  If  it 
be  destitute  of  this  goodness,  the  want  must  be  balanced 
against  the  consent  of  the  two  recensions. 

8.  If  the  Alexandrine  agrees  with  the  Constantinopoli- 
tan,  while  the  Western  differs  from  both,  we  are  to  exam- 
ine whether  the  reading  which  has  the  sanction  of  the 
Western  be  of  a  class  in  which  the  errors  of  this  last  re- 
cension are  frequent,  and  at  the  same  time  the  internal 
marks  of  truth  or  error  must  be  carefully  considered. 

9.  In  the  same  way  must  Ave  judge  of  readings  in  which 
the  Western  recension  agrees  with  the  Constantinopolitan 
against  the  Alexandrine. 

10.  If  any  recension  exhibit  a  reading  varying  from 
those  of  the  others,  it  is  not  the  number  of  individual  wit- 
nesses, but  the  internal  marks  of  goodness,  on  which  the 
preference  must  be  founded.  No  matter  how  few  the  wit- 
nesses, provided  it  can  be  shown,  that  the  reading  was  one 
in  which  all  the  old  recensions  originally  agreed,  and  there 
be  no  special  circumstances,  arising  from  the  character  of 
the  recensions,  to  weigh  against  it. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  further,  that  the  Alexandrine  manu- 
script follows  one  recension  in  the  Gospels,  another  in  St. 
Paul's  epistles,  and  a  third  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  epis- 
tles.— The  Vatican,  in  the  former  part  of  St.  Matthew, 
agrees  with  the  Western  ;  in  the  last  chapters  and  in  the 
three  other  Evangelists,  with  the  Alexandrine. — In  forming 


254  NOTES. 

an  opinion  on  the  consent  of  testimonies,  the  critic  should 
carefully  attend  to  mixed  manuscripts  of  this  kind. 

SECTION      IV. 

This  section  explains  the  author's  mode  of  arranging 
his  work,  and  the  critical  marks  with  which  the  text  is  pro- 
vided. 

1.  The  received  text  is  made  the  basis. 

2.  Whatever  alterations  have  been  made  are  scrupu- 
lously indicated. 

3.  Every  word  and  syllable  of  the  received  text  is  print- 
ed, and  in  one  uniform  character.  Whatever  alterations 
are  suggested,  are  pointed  out  by  marks  affixed  to  the  re- 
ceived text.  If  the  received  reading  has  been  stricken 
out  of  the  text,  it  is  printed  in  the  inner  margin  in 
the  same  type  as  the  text  in  general. — The  inner  margin 
is  the  space  between  the  text  and  the  body  of  readings 
with  the  authority  for  each,  and  is  included  within  two 
lines. 

4.  Whatever  is  substituted  for  the  received  reading, 
whether  it  be  admitted  into  the  text  or  introduced  into  the 
inner  margin,  is  printed  in  smaller  type. 

5.  Nothing  is  altered  on  conjecture,  nothing  without 
the  authority  of  witnesses,  namely,  manuscripts,  versions, 
fathers. 

6.  As  some  readings  varying  from  the  received  are  un- 
doubtedly to  be  regarded  as  genuine,  others,  although  not 
certainly  genuine,  yet  as  equal  to  the  received  or  nearly  so, 
and  others,  although  less  probable,  yet  worthy  of  considera- 
tion ;  these  different  grades  of  probability  are  distinctly  in- 
dicated. 

(1)  Those  that  in  the  author's  judgment  are  most  cer- 
tainly spurious,  are  omitted  in  the  text  and  placed  in  the 


NOTES.  255' 

inner  margin,  this  mark  t  being  substituted  in  the  former, 
and  in  the  latter  prefixed  to  the  displaced  words. 

(2)  Such  as  ought  probably  to  be  stricken  out,  yet  not 
certainly,  are  retained  in  the  text  with  this  mark  =  pre- 
fixed.* 

(3)  If  the  authority  for  striking  out  is  less  sufficient 
than  in  the  former  case,  the  reading,  which  ought  perhaps 
to  be  removed,  is  retained  in  the  text  with  the  mark  —  . 

7.  Those  readings  which  seem  to  have  been  improperly 
omitted  in  the  received  text  are  inserted,  but  in  smaller 
type,  with  the  mark  ^  or  4|f  or  +  prefixed,  of  which  the 
first  intimates  the  greatest  degree  of  probability,  the  second 
a  less,  and  the  third  the  least. 

8.  With  respect  to  those  emendations  of  the  sacred  text 
which  are  produced  by  commuting  one  or  more  words  for 
others,  the  following  observations  must  be  attended  to. 

(1)  A  reading  undoubtedly  genuine,  yet  different  from 
the  received,  is  introduced  into  the  text  without  any  mark, 
but  in  smaller  characters  ;  and  that  which  has  hitherto 
been  the  received  reading  is  placed,  in  larger  characters 
and  without  any  mark,  in  the  inner  margin. 

(2)  If  in  favor  of  a  reading  thus  removed  from  the  text 

considerable  authority  can  be  adduced,  yet  by  no  means 

sufficient  to  determine   its  genuineness  ;    to  the   received 

*  The  reader  v/ill  observe  the  extreme  caution  of  Griesbach  not  to  al- 
ter the  received  text  without  reasons  most  satisfactory  to  himself.  Yet 
I  cannot  but  think,  that  the  principle  here  stated  is  not  perfectly  in  unison 
with  that  laid  down  in  the  seconcl  Section,  I,  where  he  avows  it  to  be 
his  object  to  present  "his  readers  with  a  text  as  correct  as  possible, 
(textum  a  mcndis  quantum  fieri  posset  purgatissimum  exhibere  studui.") 
If  the  probability  is  on  the  side  of  strikinif  out  certain  readings,  it  seema 
plain,  that  upon  this  latter  principle  they  ought  to  have  been  stricken 
out.  The  author  has  been  led  to  the  result  expressed  above,  by  making 
the  received  text  his  basis;  and  it  is  evident  that  his  own  text  does 
sometimes  contain  readings  which  ho  himself  considered  as  probably 
spurious.  Compare  also  below,  No.  8,  (3,)  from  which  it  appears  that 
a  reading  believed  to  be  inferior  to  some  other,  may  remain  in  the  text, 
and  that  which  is  supposed  preferable  may  appear  in  smaller  ciiaracters 
in  the  inner  margin. 


236  NOTES. 

reading,  which  is  placed  in  the  inner  margin,  the  mark  C*<^ 
is  attached. 

(3)  A  received  reading,  to  which  some  other  is  of  equal 
authority,  or  which,  although  inferior  to  some  other,  is  still 
not  determined  to  be  spurious,  remains  in  the  text  with  the 
mark  CJSO  prefixed.  The  reading  which  is  considered  equal 
or  preferable  to  the  received,  is  put  in  smaller  characters 
in  the  inner  margin,  accompanied  by  the  same  mark. 

(4)  When  authority  of  some  weight  can  be  urged  in 
defence  of  a  reading,  which  at  the  same  time  is  decidedly 
inferior  to  the  received,  the  former  is  put  in  the  inner  mar- 
gin, in  smaller  characters,  with  the  mark  C^  which  is  also 
prefixed  to  the  received  reading  retained  in  the  text. 

9.  When  the  text  is  susceptible  of  a  punctuation  worthy 
of  notice  which  varies  from  the  received,  it  is  indicated  by 
a  *.     See  Matt.  iii.  3.   iv.  7,  24.  xix.  28. 

10.  The  lessons  read  in  the  Greek  church,  or  the  ana- 
gnosmata,  are  enclosed  in  brackets. 

The  text  of  Griesbach's  New  Testament  is  divided  into 
paragraphs  and  printed  in  continuous  order :  the  chapters 
are  marked  at  the  top,  and  the  verses,  (each  of  which  be- 
gins with  a  capital  letter,)  on  the  side. 

SECTION     V. 

As  the  object  of  this  section  is  merely  to  show  in  what 
respects  the  second  edition  differs  from  the  first,  it  is  un- 
necessary to  give  an  outline  of  it. 

SECTION      VI. 

Here  the  author  explains  the  various  marks  and  abbre- 
viations employed  in  his  work,  whether  in  the  text,  the 
inner  margin,  or  the  notes.  Several  will  be  found 
already  illustrated  in  Section  iv.  ;  an  explanation  of  a  few 


NOTES.  257 

others  of  principal  importance  and  frequent  occurrence  is 
here  subjoined.  If  the  reader  wishes  to  see  them  all  in 
one  view,  let  him  consult  Griesbach  himself. 

"  This  mark  indicates  the  extent  to  which  the  immedi- 
ately preceding  mark,  or  small  Latin  letter  referring  also 
to  the  notes,  applies. — :  This  is  used  when  the  application 
of  the  mark  is  more  limited  than  that  of  the  Latin  letter. 
Both  may  be  illustrated  by  referring  to  Matt.  iii.  12, 
aui/tt|£t  Tov  ciTov  "=  avTov :  eis  rhv  drroOi'iKnv,  "  where  the  forcc  of  the 
letter  '  applies  to  all  the  following  words,  while  the  =  is 
limited  to  avroi. 

The  two  preceding  marks  belong  to  the  text,  the  follow- 
ing to  the  notes. 

II  This  is  employed  to  intimate,  that  the  various  read- 
ings to  which  it  is  prefixed  belong  to  the  same  words  of  the 
text,  to  which  the  various  reading  related  which  had  already 
been  noted. 

—  This  indicates  that  the  words  of  the  text,  which  are 
comprehended  within  the  Latin  letter  and  the  mark  ",  or 
which  the  inner  margin  contains  with  the  mark  t  prefixed, 
are  omitted  in  the  enumerated  manuscripts  ;  and  +  denotes 
that  the  words  which  follow  it  are  added  in  the  manuscripts 
cited.  If  no  Greek  word  follow,  the  meaning  is,  that  in 
the  manuscripts  enumerated  after  the  mark,  the  reading  is 
the  same  as  that  introduced  in  the  text  in  smaller  charac- 
ters. 

*  This  signifies  that  the  manuscript,  to  the  appropriate 
mark  of  wliich  it  is  subjoined,  contained  the  reading  refer- 
red to  a  prima  manu,  but  that  subsequently  it  was  changed 
into  another  ;  and  **  denotes  that  the  reading  occurs  in  the 
manuscript    from   emendation,   or  may  be    found  in   the 

margin. 

22 


258  NOTES. 

SECTION      VII. 

This  section  contains  a  list  of  Greek  manuscripts  refer- 
red to.  I.  Those  written  in  uncial  characters ;  II.  those  in 
smaller  character ;  III.  Evangelistaria*;  IV.  manuscripts 
used  in  preparing  St.  Matthew's  Gospel ;  and  lastly,  a 
list  of  Sclavonian  Manuscripts  communicated  to  him  by 

DOBROSKY. 


This  brief  outline  of  Griesbach's  principles  and  views 
as  exhibited  in  his  Prolegomena,  is  given  for  the  informa- 
tion of  the  reader  who  wants  time  or  opportunity  to  consult 
the  original  work.  It  must  be  evident,  that  to  prepare  an 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  under  the  guidance  of 
them,  must  indeed  be  a  task  equal  if  not  superior  in  diffi- 
culty in  that  of  Adamantius  himself  Whatever  may  be 
said  of  the  result,  it  is  impossible  to  question  the  laborious- 
ness  of  the  undertaking.  In  the  one  all  have  acquiesced, 
but  not  a  few  have  been  dissatisfied  with  the  other. 

The  first  reflection  which  must  strike  an  examiner  of 

the  author's  system,  is  the  extreme  difficulty  of  determining 

to  what  recension  each  manuscript,  version,    or    reading 

taken  from  the  work  of  any  father,  does  certainly  belong.! 

*  The  Evangelistaria  contain  the  Gospels  as  read  in  the  daily  service 
of  the  ancient  Greek  church. 

■f  I  find  that  Professor  Lee  has  made  the  same  remark  in  his  Prolego- 
mena to  Bagster's  Polyglot.  Prol.  VI.  §  xi.  p.  69.  I  cannot  agree  with 
him,  however,  in  considering  the  whole  subject  of  recensions  as  an 
ingenious  fabrication,  devised  with  the  view  of  involving  a  matter  of  no 
great  difficulty  in  utter  darkness,  and  am  surprised  that  he  should  have 
expressed  himself  in  such  unqualified  language.  "  Ingeniosse"  (says  he,) 
illae  familiarum  fabricae,  uti  mihi  videtur,  in  unum  tantunimodo  finem 
feliciter  exstructae  sunt ;  ut,  scilicet,  rem  in  seipsa  haud  valde  obscuram, 
tenebris  jEgyptiacis  obscuriorem  reddant;  editoresque  eos,  qui  se  omnia 
rem  acu  tetigisse  putent,  supra  mortalium  labendi  statum,  nescio  quan- 
tum, evehere."  The  reader  is  particularly  referred  to  Schulz's  edition 
of  Griesbach's  New  Testament,  of  which  some  account  is  given  at  the 
end  of  this  note.  Preface  p.  xxxii — xxxv.  While  he  gives  his  opinion 
that  the  doctrine  of  different  recensions  is  not  to  be  rejected,  he  candidly 


NOTES. 

And  until  this  is  done,  there  can  be  no  such  classification 
of  the  testimony  as  Griesbach  has  made,  and  by  conse- 
quence no  reasoning  founded  on  the  evidence  afforded  by 
any  specific  number  of  witnesses. 

Another  difficulty  of  no  small  magnitude  is  connected 
with  a  previous  point,  viz  :  that  of  settling  the  primitive 
readings  in  every  authority,  where  so  many  circumstances, 
both  designed  and  incidental,  may  have  produced  and  pro- 
pagated diversity. 

A  third  consideration  is  perhaps  of  more  importance 
than  either  of  these.  Allowing  the  existence  of  recensions, 
it  may  very  reasonably  be  asked,  has  the  number  been 
definitely  settled  t  If  there  be  more  than  three,  as  Gries- 
bach himself  seems  to  suppose,*  his  procedure  in  determin- 
ing the  evidence  from  the  testimony  of  three  only  is  inad- 
missable.  "  If  we  suppose,"  says  Lawrence,!  "  the  exist- 
ence of  five  or  six,  but  bring  only  three  to  a  comparison, 

acknowledges  thai  it  ought  to  be  more  closely  limited,  and  more  sparingly 
and  cautiously  applied,  than  has  been  done  by  Griesbach  and  his  fol- 
lowers, lest  it  should  result  in  a  mere  mechanical  process.  He  plainly 
intimates  that  there  never  was  any  authority  by  which  the  characteris- 
tics of  the  Alexandrine,  Western  and  Constantinopolitan  recensions 
could  be  determined,  that  no  manuscript  or  version  uniformly  exhibits  a 
text  in  such  a  clearly  defined  state  as  must  assign  it  to  some  particular 
recension,  but  on  the  contrary,  even  the  most  ancient  show  some  marks 
of  other  recensions  than  those  to  which  they  have  been  assigned  ;  that 
it  is  scarcely  possible  to  show,  in  any  respect,  a  particular  character 
appropriate  to  any  of  the  recensions  so  called,  and  in  what  way  any  one 
may  be  distinguished  from  the  rest;  that  there  are  no  settled  grounds 
whereby  to  determine  the  number  and  character  of  particular  readings 
necessary  to  constitute  any  new  recension ;  and  that  none  of  the  docu- 
ments of  the  various  recensions  exhibit  those  recensions  in  an  unadulte- 
rated condition,  but  more  or  less  in  a  state  of  corruption  and  confusion. 
While  therefore  it  is  right  to  distribute  the  various  manuscripts  and 
versions  into  classes,  on  account  of  their  agreement  or  disagreement  in 
a  greater  or  less  degree,  yet  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  vari- 
ous readings  of  fortuitous  origin,  and  such  as  have  been  introduced 
intentionally  and  with  some  particular  design.  Of  the  former  class  the 
number  undoubtedly  does  greatly  preponderate. 

*  See  his  Curse  in  Epistolas  Paulinas,  1777,  and  Preface  to  his  edition 
of  the  Gospels,  published  the  same  year,  as  quoted  by  Lawrence,  ubj 
Bup.  pp.  18,  ss. 

+  lb.  p.  50, 


260 


NOTES. 


it  is  manifest  that  we  cannot  possibly  determine  to  which 
of  the  five  or  six  any  manuscript  properly  belongs ;  but 
merely  that  it  possesses  a  closer  affinity  to  one,  than  to  the 
other  two,  of  the  three  compared."  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  the  existence  of  even  three  should  be  doubtful,  the 
author's  conclusions  must  be  in  a  great  measure  insecure. 
And  that  this  is  doubtful  is  the  opinion  of  the  acute  and 
perspicacious  writer  just  quoted.  "Instead  of  establishing 
five  or  six  classes,  I  confess  that  I  see  not  good  ground 
for  the  admission  of  even  three.  I  do  not  however  deny 
that  these,  or  more  than  these,  exist,  because  their  exist- 
ence is  possible  ;  but  I  contend,  that  it  has  not  been  suffi- 
ciently proved."* 

Dr.  Lawrence'sf  pamphlet  is  well  worthy  of  attention 
in  reference  to  this  subject.  He  possesses  nothing  of  that 
castigating  and  bitter  spirit,  which  shows  itself  in  some 
writers  on  criticism,  whose  works  may  be  said  to  be  "  plena 
quidem  eruditionis,  ac  non  aeque  plena  humanitatis."|  He 
writes  with  the  candor  of  a  scholar  and  liberal  minded  man, 
allowing  Griesbach  the  praise  of  being  a  modest  and  un- 
assuming and  most  able  critic,  and  in  the  outset  vindicating 
his  orthodoxy  on  the  subject  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  by  an 
appropriate  quotation  from  his  preface  to  the  apostolical 
writings  published  in  1775,  in  which  he  *  publicly  professes 
and  calls  God  to  witness,  that  he  has  no  doubt  of  the  truth 
of  this  doctrine,  substantiated  as  it  is  by  so  many  and  evi- 
dent proofs  from  scripture.' ||     It  is  on  good  grounds  that 

*  p.  92.  +  Now  Archbishop  of  Cashel. 

X  This  remark  is  made  by  Moaus  in  reference  to  the  controversy 
between  Heinsius  and  Sahnasius  on  the  Hellenistic  language.  Herman. 
Novi  Test.  vol.  i.  p.  223. 

II  As  it  IS  probable,  that  neither  the  publication  of  Griesbach,  nor  the 
■(vork  of  Archbishop  Lawrence  is  accessible  to  most  of  my  readers, 
and  as  the  avowal  is  made  in  very  express  language,  I  shall  here  intro- 
duce it,  being  indebted  to  the  latter  author  for  the  quotation,  pp.  3,  s. 
"  Interim  um  tamen  dogmati  eique  palmario,  doctrinse  scilicet  de  vera 


NOTES.  261 

this  able  writer  questions  the  correctness  of  Griesbach's 
method  of  estimating  the  various  readings  of  a  manuscript 
by  its  departure  from  the  received  text ;  and  he  has  shown, 
that  the  careful  and  laborious  German  critic  is  to  be 
"  suspected"  not  indeed  of  want  of  fidelity,  but  of  occa- 
sional "  inadvertency." 

Griesbach's  scheme  is  more  particularly  examined  in 
the  large  work  of  the  Rev.  Frederick  Nolan  before 
referred  to.  According  to  this  learned  writer,  Griesbach's 
Western  and  Alexandrine  recensions  are,  properly  speaking, 
the  Egyptian  and  Palestine ;  the  Constantinopolitan  or 
Byzantine  is  considered  as  the  same  by  both  these  authors. 
Nolan  treads  partly  in  the  steps  of  Griesbach  and  partly 
in  those  of  Bengel.  In  part  also  he  is  led  by  his  own 
conjectures,  which  are  plainly  destitute  of  any  founda- 
tion. He  admits  three  recensions  or  "  principal  classes  of 
Greek  manuscripts,  one  of  which  agrees  with  the  Italic 
translation  contained  in  the  Brescia  manuscript,  another 
with  that  contained  in  the  Vercelli  manuscript,  and  a  third 
with  that  contained  in  the  Vulgate."  Inquiry,  &c.  p.  61. 
He  supposes  the  Palestine  text  as  amended  by  Origen,  to 
have  been  corrupted  by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  and  published 
by  him  in  this  state ;  and  maintains  that  the  Coptic,  Syriac, 
Ethiopic  and  some  other  versions,  were  also  corrupted  from 
the  text  of  Eusebius,  and  therefore  are  of  little  or  no  au- 

Jesu  Christi  divinitate,  nonnihil  a  me  detractum  esse  videri  posset  non- 
nuUis.  Quare  ut  iniquas  siispiciones  omncs,  quantum  in  mo  est,  amo- 
!iar,  et  hominibus  malevolis  calumniandi  ansam  prasripiam,  primum 
publice,  projileor  atc/ue  Deum  teslor,  neutiquain  medu  veritate  istius  dog- 
matis  dul)itare.  Atque  sunt  profecto  tarn  vmlia  et  luculenta  argximmta 
et  Scripturcc  loca.  quibus  vera  Deltas  Christo  vindicatur,  ut  ego  quidem 
intelligure  vix  possum,  quomodo,  conoessa  Scriptura;  sacra;  divina  auc- 
toritate  et  admissis  justis  interpretandi  regulis,  dogma  hoc  in  dubium  a 
quoquam  vocaii  possit.  In  primis  locus  ilTe,  John  i.  1 — 3,  tam  pcrspicu- 
us  est  atque  omnibus  exceptionibus  major,  ut  neque  interjiretum  neque 
criticorum  audacibus  conatibus  unquam  everti  atque  veritaiis  dcfensori- 
bus  eripi  possit." 

22* 


262  NOTES. 

thority.  See  pp.  26,  ss.  A  charge  of  wilful  corruption, 
and  in  texts  which  have  the  strongest  and  most  direct 
bearing  on  some  of  the  vital  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
(such,  for  instance,  as  1  John  v.  7.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Acts 
XX.  28.  See  p.  27.)  ought  not  to  be  advanced  without  the 
clearest  and  most  irrefragable  proof  But  it  is  altogether 
destitute  of  support.  Indeed  its  very  extravagance  is  its 
own  confutation.  For  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  so 
distinguished  a  man  as  Eusebius  would  desire  to  publish 
a  mutilated  text;  and  it  is  utterly  incredible,  that  he  could 
have  done  so,  without  exciting  the  attention  of  Christian 
scholars,  especially  at  a  period  when  Arianism  began  to 
prevail  in  the  church. 

If  the  reader  wishes  to  see  this  bold  criticism  examined 
and  refuted,  he  is  referred  to  the  very  learned  Prolegomena 
to  Bagster's  Polyglot  by  Professor  Lee,  Prol.  VI.  pp.  66, 
ss.  For  a  fuller  account  of  Mr.  Nolan's  book,  and  for 
other  theories  on  the  subject  of  recensions  and  classifi- 
cations of  manuscripts,  see  Horne's  Introduction,  Vol.  IL 
pp.  104—115. 

A  cheap  and  neat  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  is 
that  of  Dr.  Knapp.  Novum  Testamentum  Graece.  Re- 
cognovit  atque  insignioris  lectionem  varietates  et  arguraen- 
torum  notationes  subjunxit  Georgius  Christian  us  Knap- 
pius.  Edit.  Test.  Hal.  1824.  This  edition  takes  notice 
of  the  more  remarkable  various  readings,  and  gives  brief 
outlines  of  the  subjects,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page.  It  is 
highly  praised  for  the  accuracy  of  its  punctuation.  It  is 
in  two  vols.  12mo,  frequently  bound  in  one. 

In  the  same  year.  Dr.  Vater  published  his  edition, 
founded  on  the  Greek  text  of  Griesbach  and  Knapp.  It 
is  in  one  large  Svo  volume  of  835  pages,  and  is  a  very 
useful  work.     It  contains,  besides  the  Greek  text,  the  prin- 


NOTES. 

cipal  various  readings  and  their  authorities,  with  exegeti- 
cal  notes,  which  although  short  are  often  satisfactory.  At 
the  end  four  indexes  are  added  ;  the  first  geographical 
and  historical ;  and  the  second  of  difficult  Greek  words 
and  such  as  occur  but  seldom  ;  the  third  of  critical  helps ; 
and  the  fourth  of  exegetical.  The  last  contains  a  list 
of  commentators,  chiefly  German,  on  each  book  of  the 
New  Testament. 

An  account  of  Dr.  Schulz's  edition  of  Griesbach's 
New  Testament  shall  bring  this  long  note  to  a  termination. 
I  am  indebted  for  it  to  a  learned  friend  and  indefatigable 
scholar,  the  Rev.  William  R.  Whittingham,  A.  M.,  who 
prepared  it  originally  as  a  paper  for  the  Biblical  Litera- 
ture Association. 


Notice  of  "  Novum  Testamentum  Graece.  Textum  ad  fidem  codicum, 
Versionum,  et  Patrum  recensuit,  et  Lectionis  Varietatem  adjecit 
J.  J.  Griesbachius. — Vol.  I.  Evangelia  complectens.  Editionem 
tertiam  emendatam  et  auctam,  curavit  D.  Schulz.  8vo.  Berolini. 
1827." 

This  is  a  compact  volume,  in  a  style  of  printing  far 
superior  to  that  of  the  generality  of  German  books.  As 
it  has  been  sometime  expected,  as  the  very  title  indicates 
an  attempt  of  no  small  magnitude,  an  enlargement  and 
improvement  of  Griesbach's  edition,  and  as  it  is  in  reality  a 
valuable  accession  to  the  stock  of  Biblical  literature,  it  is 
deserving  of  some  short  notice. 

First,  as  to  its  history.  The  author  states  (Pref.  i — iv.) 
that  four  years  before  the  appearance  of  this  volume,  he 
had  been  solicited  to  superintend  a  reimpression  of  the 
New  Testament  of  Griesbach.  He  had  declined  the  office, 
and  used  his  endeavors  to  induce  the  celebrated  Dr. 
Knapp  to  undertake  it,  whose  smaller  critical  edition  of  the 


264  NOTES. 

New  Testament,  in  its  several  continually  improved  edi- 
tions, so  fully  attested  his  competence.  Knapp  declined, 
and  in  his  turn  pressed  it  upon  Schulz,  who  had  devoted 
many  years'  attention  to  the  studies  necessary  to  qualify 
him  for  the  task.  Upon  the  death  of  Dr.  Knapp  which 
occurred  soon  after,  Schulz  at  length  set  seriously  about 
the  work.  He  had,  however,  previously  to  that  event, 
received  his  friend's  advice  respecting  the  manner  of  con- 
ducting the  edition,  his  opinion  on  two  sheets  which  were 
printed  in  1826  as  a  specimen,  and  his  approbation  of  the 
general  features  of  the  plan,  as  exhibited  in  that  specimen. 
Secondly,  respecting  the  plan  of  the  work,  it  is  proper 
to  give  some  account  of  the  measures  taken  to  ensure  cor- 
rectness and  completeness  in  the  reimpression  of  Griesbach's 
edition  ;  the  additions  made  to  it,  and  the  improvements  on  it. 

I.  Schulz's  first  endeavor  was  to  secure  any  posthumous 
remains  of  Griesbach  himself,  that  might  afford  assistance 
in  the  correction  and  completion  of  his  work.  But  his 
search  for  these  was  fruitless.  His  next  object  was  to 
ascertain  the  correctness  of  Griesbach's  references  to 
authorities,  by  a  new  examination.  With  respect  to  the 
greater  part  of  those  relating  immediately  to  manuscripts, 
however,  this  was  impossible.  Such  as  were  accessible, 
were  recoUated  with  great  care.  The  references  to  print- 
ed works  were  almost  subjected  to  a  re-examination,  Schulz 
himself  having  bestowed  much  pains  upon  the  collection 
of  such  works,  while  the  rarer  and  more  expensive  were 
accessible  to  him  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Berlin. 

II.  In  the  enlargement  of  the  work,  Schulz  has  aimed 
at  the  use,  after  Griesbach's  plans  of  all  the  additional 
sources  furnished  during  the  thirty  years  which  had  elapsed 
since  the  publication  of  his  last  edition.  The  principal 
materials  thus  employed  by  him,  are  the  following. 


NOTES.  265 

1)  The  fac-simile  of  the  Alexandrine  manuscript  by 
Woide. 

2)  The  fac-simile  of  the  Cambridge  manuscript  by 
Kipling. 

3)  Sabatier's  edition  of  the  old  Latin  version,  with 
the  various  readings  of  several  ancient  MSS. 

4)  Blanchini's  Latin  MSS.  in  his  Evangeliarium  Quad- 
ruplex. 

5)  Bentley's  collation  of  the  Vatican  MS.,  which  in 
many  places  differs  considerably  from  that  made  by  Birch, 
and  which  was  first  published  at  Oxford  in  1799,  as  an 
Appendix  to  Woide's  New  Testament  from  the  Alexandrine 
MS. ;  that  is,  the  fac-simile  above  mentioned. 

6)  Barret's  fac-simile  of  the  Dublin  Rescript  MS.  of 
the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew. 

7)  The  collation  of  the  Codex  Cyprius,  an  uncial  MS. 
of  the  8th  or  9th  century,  by  A.  Scholz,  the  traveller. 

8)  Pappelbaum's  collation  of  a  Berlin  MS.  of  the 
11th  century,  containing  portions  of  the  gospels. 

9)  Birch's  collation  of  some  Greek  MSS.  published  in 
his  Variantes  Lectiones  ad  textum  IV  evangeliorum. 

10)  A  few  readings  collected  from  5  Paris  MSS.  pre- 
viously uncollated,  by  A.  Scholz. 

11)  The  Rehdingeran  MS.  of  the  ante-Hieronymian 
Latin  version  of  the  Gospels;  transcribed  throughout  by 
Schulz  himself 

12)  The  Gothic  version,  published  by  Zahn,  in 
1805. 

13)  The  fragments  of  the  Gothic  version  published  by 
Angelo  Mai.  ' 

14)  The  fragments  of  the  Sahidic  version,  published 
from  Oxford  MSS.  by  Ford,  in  an  appendix  to  Woide's 
edition  of  the  Alexandrine  MS. 


NOTES. 

15)  The  fragments  of  the  Basmurico-Coptic  version, 
published  by  Engelbrecht  in  1811. 

16)  The  MSS.  notes  of  C.  B.  Michaelis  in  his  copy 
of  Kuster's  edition  of  Mill ;  principally  relating  to  the  read- 
ings of  the  Syriac,  Arabic,  Persian  and  Ethiopic  ver- 
sions. 

17)  The  Gronovian  and  Meermanian  MSS.,  neither  of 
them,  however,  of  any  great  value,  published  by  Dermont 
at  Leyden,  in  his  collectanea  critica  in  Nov.  Test,  in  1825. 

These  several  sources  of  additional  critical  matter,  are, 
as  an  aggregate,  of  very  considerable  value,  and  their  care- 
ful use  by  Schulz  must  tend  in  no  small  degree  to  enhance 
the  value  of  this  new  edition. 

While  bestowing  sedulous  attention  upon  this  reimpres- 
sion  of  the  work  of  Griesbach,  Schulz  undertook  also,  with 
a  view  to  its  improvement,  continually  to  consult  all  the 
principal  editions  both  ancient  and  modern ;  especially 
those  of  Stephens,  Wetstein,  Mill,  Bengel,  Birch,  both  of 
Matthaei's,  that  of  Knapp,  and  both  of  Griesbach's,  all  which 
he  declares  were  always  open  before  him. 

The  result  of  this  collation  was  the  discovery  of  fre- 
quent errors  in  Griesbach's  references  or  citations,  which 
have  been  carefully  corrected.  Occasionally  Schulz  hag 
been  led  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  Griesbach's  decisions, 
and  to  adopt  opinions  different  from  those  of  his  author. 
In  all  such  cases,  the  original  readings  of  Griesbach  have 
been  retained,  with  the  addition  of  such  as  Schulz  would 
prefer;  and  his  reasons  for  the  preference  are  given  in  notes 
in  double  brackets.  All  the  additions  from  the  supplemen- 
tary critical  apparatus  used  by  Schulz,  and  all  the  additions 
which  he  has  thought  proper  to  make  from  the  sources  par- 
tially used  by  Griesbach,  which  are  very  numerous,  are 
similarly  distinguished. 


NOTES.  267" 

Besides  these  improvements  in  the  substance  of  the 
work,  others  of  great  importance  have  been  made  in  its 
external  form  and  arrangement. 

Griesbach's  text  was  printed  in  double  columns,  while 
the  notes,  in  a  type  but  one  degree  smaller,  extended  across 
the  page,  without  any  break  or  other  distinction  between 
the  notes,  than  that  produced  by  the  mark  of  reference  to 
the  text.  Schulz  has  printed  the  text  in  large  type,  all 
across  the  page,  without  distinction,  in  the  body  of  the 
print,  of  chapters  and  verses,  other  than  a  small  blank 
between  each  verse  which  begins  a  capital  letter ;  the  num- 
bers of  each  being  given  in  the  outer  margin.  The  notes 
are  printed  in  double  columns,  each  note  commencing  a 
separate  paragraph.  In  the  text,  the  most  minute  attention 
has  been  paid  to  its  typography,  of  which  the  details  are 
given  by  Schulz,  Pref  p.  viii — xv. — Griesbach's  punctua- 
tion has  been  very  much  altered,  the  rule  of  giving  as  little 
punctuation  as  possible,  recommended  by  Knapp  and  Butt- 
man,  having  been  adhered  to.  Passages  where  a  difference 
of  punctuation  would  alter  the  sense  have  generally  been 
left  unpointed.  The  asterisk  used  by  Griesbach  to  indicate 
possible  varieties  of  punctuation,  has  been  retained,  and  in 
many  places  added.  The  accents  and  orthography  have 
been  scrupulously  regulated  according  to  the  most  approved 
modern  principles.  Names  of  men  and  places  are  com- 
menced with  capital  letters,  a  distinction  limited  by  Gries^ 
bach  to  verses.  Parentheses  are  in  general  more  .sparingly 
used  by  Schulz  than  by  Griesbach,  (e.  g.  Mar.  v.  28.  Luc. 
ii.  2,  4,  23.  35.)  although  occasionally  added  by  the  former 
(Luc.  vii.  j4.)  The  name  and  chapter  of  the  book  at  the 
head  of  the  page,  are  given  in  Latin,  the  former  of  which 
is  in  Greek  in  Griesbach's  own  editions. 

In  the  critical  apparatus,  the  aim  of  Schulz  has  been 


268  NOTES. 

to  make  the  references  and  citations  as  clear,  and  yet  as 
brief  as  possible. 

The  references  to  the  fathers  have  been  made  more 
explicit  and  definite,  and  sometimes  the  book  and  chapter 
have  been  added,  thus  affording  great  additional  facility  to 
one  who  would  verify  them  for  himself,  and  examine  their 
connexion  with  the  context,  which  is  often  of  no  small  im- 
portance in  determining  the  degree  of  authority  which  they 
may  possess.  The  abbreviated  references  to  MSS  autho- 
rities, &c.  have  been  rendered  more  full,  and  much  more 
uniform.  Attention  has  been  paid  even  to  the  capital  ini- 
tials, &/C.,  which  in  references  to  the  versions,  is  of  conside- 
rable importance  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  mistake. 

Schulz  has  added,  with  great  care,  references  to  the 
places  of  the  Old  Testament,  parallel  to  others  in  the  New, 
which  parallels  have  frequently  been  sources  of  various 
readings.  He  occasionally  alters  Griesbach's  arrangement 
of  a  note.  Often  he  adds  an  opinion  respecting  the  merits 
of  a  reading  in  a  very  kw  words,  perhaps  not  more  than 
one.  The  letters  of  reference  to  the  notes  have  not  been 
changed,  the  additional  notes  of  Schulz  having  double  let- 
ters. A  number  of  other  minor  alterations,  of  a  similar 
nature,  have  been  made  in  the  references  and  citations,  and 
are,  almost  without  exception,  considerable  improvements. 
Numerous  abbreviations,  generally  very  judicious,  have  been 
adopted,  for  the  purpose  of  saving  room. 

With  relation  to  accuracy  of  typography,  this  edition  is 
deserving  of  the  fullest  confidence.  All  the  sheets  were 
twice  corrected  at  Berlin,  by  a  competent  scholar,  with  a 
degree  of  diligence  and  accuracy  much  praised  by  Schulz. 
Two  copies  of  each  sheet  were  then  sent  by  post  to  the 
editor,  one  of  which  he  read  in  every  part  with  the  utmost 
care,  the   other  he   submitted,    for  the  correction   of  the 


NOTES.  269 

text  alone,  to  his  philological  friends  Passau,  Schneider, 
and  PiNSGER,  who  carefully  revised  it,  with  a  view  princi- 
pally to  the  correction  of  the  accents  and  points. — All  of 
these  corrections  were  copied  into  both  sheets,  one  of  which 
Schulz  retained,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  sheets  by 
it  a  second  time.  After  all  this  care,  a  sixth  reading  of  the 
sheets  after  they  were  printed,  has  produced  18  pages  of 
addenda  et  corrigenda. 

A  full  account  of  all  these  particulars  respecting  his 
edition,  with  a  statement  of  his  reasons,  occupy  30  pages 
of  the  preface. 

Pp.  XXX — Ivi.  contain  copious  and  learned  remarks  on 
the  criticism  of  the  text  in  general,  and  particularly  on 
Griesbach's  system  of  recensions,  and  his  method  of  cor- 
rection. 

Griesbach's  Prolegomena  are  printed  entire  with  a  few 
brief  notes,  distinguished  from  those  of  the  author  by 
double  brackets ;  and  with  some  additions  to  the  critical 
apparatus. 

NOTE    XXIX. 

The  view  here  given  of  the  very  great  facility  with  which 
the  Hebrew  language  may  be  acquired  cannot  be  admitted. 
An  enthusiastic  admiration  of  any  thing  not  unfrequently 
leads  its  advocates  to  represent  its  attainment  as  the  easiest 
matter  imaginable.  No  language  can  be  gained  without 
time  and  labor  ;  and  all  attempts  to  advance  the  study  of 
a  language  by  making  its  acquisition  the  work  of  a  few 
days  or  a  few  hours,  must  be  injurious,  because  experience 
proves  them  to  be  unfounded.  An  accurate  and  funda- 
mental acquaintance  with  Hebrew  is  a  work  of  time  and 
patient  examination  ;  but  it  brings  with  it  an  ample  reward, 
in  enabling  the  interpreter  to  judge  for  himself,  without 

23 


270 


NOTES. 


placing  implicit  reliance  on  the  judgments  of  others.  An 
ability  to  analyze  a  chapter  by  the  aid  of  a  Grammar  and  Lex- 
icon, may  indeed  be  acquired  with  moderate  study  in  a  few 
months;  and  at  present,  when  the  facilities  for  acquiring 
Hebrew  are  so  abundant,  no  student  of  theology  need  be,  and 
scarcely  any  ought  to  be,  without  this  ability.  The  reader 
is  referred  to  the  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  i.  No.  ii.  pp.  491 
— 530,  for  a  defence  of  the  claims  of  the  Hebrew  language 
and  literature  on  the  attention  of  scholars  in  general,  and 
particularly  of  students  of  theology. 

NOTE    XXX. 

If  to  this  course  of  preparation,  the  apocryphal  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  some  works  in  the  common 
Greek  dialect  be  added,  it  will  be  the  more  complete  in 
itself,  and  the  more  advantageous  in  its  results. 

NOTE   XXXI. 

It  is  stated  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  iii.  p.  757, 
that  "  Professor  Theile,  of  Leipzig,  announced  in  April 
1832,  that  the  exegetical  part  of  Wetstein's  New  Testa- 
ment, and  all  the  remarks  of  the  writers  of  Observationes 
in  N.  T.,  as  Alberti,  Eisner,  Krebs,  Kypke,  Loesner, 
Munthe,  Raphel,  &c.,  were  to  be  arranged  together  under 
his  supervision,  and  published  in  one  Corpus  Observationum 
philologicarum  in  N.  T." — I  am  unable  to  say  whether  this 
work  has  yet  appeared.  If  executed  with  proper  judgment, 
it  would  be  an  important  acquisition  to  the  library  of  any 
student. 

NOTE    XXXII. 

I  have  endeavored  to  express  the  author's  meaning, 
without  confining  myself  closely  to  his  language.  It  is 
evident  that  he  speaks  of  reason  uninfluenced  by  prejudice, 


NOTES.  271 

and  in  this  sense,  the  correctness  of  his  remark  is  undenia- 
ble, as  truth  must  make  its  appeal  to  this  principle.  This 
is  the  foundation  of  argument.  All  truths  must  be  agreea- 
ble to  pure  reason,  although  many  are  far  removed  from 
the  grasp  of  limited  reason  which  man  is  able  to  appropriate. 
Whatever  truths  are  rejected  by  the  understanding,  are 
rejected  from  ignorance  or  prejudice. 

"Unto  the  word  of  God,"  says  Hooker,  "being  in 
respect  of  that  end  for  which  God  ordained  it,  perfect, 
exact,  and  absolute  in  itself,  we  do  not  add  reason  as  a 
supplement  of  any  maim  or  defect  therein,  but  as  a  necessa- 
ry instrument,  without  which  we  could  not  reap  by  the  scrip- 
ture's perfection  that  fruit  and  benefit  which  it  yielded." — 
"  Because  the  sentences  which  are  by  the  Apostles  recited 
out  of  the  Psalms,  to  prove  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 
did  not  prove  it,  if  so  be  the  prophet  David  meant  them  of 
himself,  this  exposition  therefore  they  plainly  disprove,  and 
show  by  manifest  reason,  that  of  David  the  words  of  David 
could  not  possibly  be  meant.  Exclude  the  use  of  natural 
reasoning  about  the  sense  of  holy  scripture,  concerning  the 
articles  of  our  faith,  and  then  that  the  scripture  doth  con- 
cern the  articles  of  our  faith  who  can  assure  us  1  That 
which  by  right  exposition  buildeth  up  Christian  faith,  being 
misconstrued,  breedeth  error  ;  between  true  and  false  con- 
struction, the  difference  reason  must  show."  Ecclesiastical 
Polity,  Book  iii.  §  8.  The  whole  section  is  particularly 
worthy  of  the  reader's  attention. 


NOTE    XXXIII. 

This  word  is  used  in  a  technical  sense,  for  literally,  as 
indeed  the  term  figurative,  which  follows,  would  suggest. 
Comp.  Ernesti's  Elements  of  Interpretation,  translated  by 
Stdakt,  ^  42,  p.  21. 


272  NOTES. 


NOTE     XXXIV. 

To  prevent  the  possibility  of  misapprehending  the 
author's  meaning,  I  beg  leave  to  suggest — what  however 
can  hardly  escape  the  observation  of  all  discerning  readers 
— that  the  rule  does  not  direct  the  interpreter  to  allow  the 
spirit  and  mode  of  thinking  of  the  age  to  modify  or  do 
away  the  evident  meaning  of  a  passage,  but  merely  to 
assist  him  in  ascertaining  what  the  meaning  is.  In  con- 
nexion with  the  subject,  it  may  be  proper  to  add  another 
consideration,  in  itself  very  evident,  and  yet  not  sufficiently 
attended  to  by  some  modern  commentators.  Before  the 
interpreter  appeals  to  the  spirit  and  mode  of  thinking  of 
his  author's  age,  in  order  to  illustrate  a  supposed  difficulty, 
let  him  ascertain  with  as  much  certainty  as  the  case  will 
admit,  what  that  spirit  is,  lest  he  apply  a  principle  arising 
out  of  his  imagination  rather  than  one  supplied  by  historic 
evidence.  It  is  said  by  some  commentators,  that  the  narra- 
tive of  our  Lord's  temptation  is  only  a  parabolical  represen- 
tation of  evil  and  distressing  thoughts  arising  in  his  mind, 
which  he  strongly  repressed,  and  thus  prevented  the  natu- 
ral result  of  such  reflections  :  and  this  they  say  is  repre- 
sented, agreeably  to  the  Jewish  manner,  and  in  the  spirit 
of  the  apostolic  age,  as  if  the  devil  had  assaulted  him 
with  temptations.  So  again,  the  account  of  an  appearance 
of  an  angel  to  Zacharias,  and  also  to  Mary,  merely  denotes 
the  providential  agency  of  God,  expressed  according  to  the 
mode  of  thinking  prevalent  at  that  time.  Before  such 
representations  of  apparent  facts  can  advance  any  reasona- 
ble claim  to  attention,  it  ought  to  be  shown  that  such  was 
the  manner  of  thinking,  and  of  expressing  one's  thoughts  in 
plain  prose  composition,  among  the  Jews,  when  the  New 
Testament  was  written.  Any  reference  to  the  machinery 
of  poetry  would   be  entirely   irrelevant.     Let  the  reader 


NOTES.  273 

compare  what  the  author  says  on  the  abuse  of  higher  criti- 
cism on  page  152. 

NOTE    XXXV. 

The  author  means  I  suppose,  that  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles,  in  common  with  their  nation,  used  this  phrase  to 
express  the  authority  and  government  of  the  divine  Messiah. 
That  our  Lord  attached  to  it  a  very  different  meaning  from 
the  one  in  which  it  was  understood  by  the  great  body  of  the 
Jews  and  the  apostles  themselves  originally,  who  employed 
the  phrase  to  express  their  gross  idea  of  a  temporal  reign, 
is  too  evident  to  require  any  proof  See  Robinson's  Lexi- 
con from  Wahl's  Clavis,  under  PaaiXeta,  No.  4. 

NOTE   xxxvi. 

Illustrations  of  most  of  the  author's  remarks  in  this 
paragraph  will  be  perceived  by  an  examination  of  the  fol- 
lowing passages.  1  Cor.  vi.  26,  ss.  xi.  10.  Acts  xxi.  21 
— 26.  Luke  xvii.  20,  21.  xix.  11.  2  Cor.  xii.  2,  last  clause. 
Rev.  i.  4.,  iv.  5.  Matt.  iii.  9.  Rom.  ix.  7.  Several  places 
in  our  Lord's  sermon  on  the  mount.  John  ix.  2.  Matt, 
xxii.  17,  23.  Mark  vii.  3,  4.  Luke  xiii.  1,  4.  xix.  12. 
Matt.  iii.  11.  Luke  iii.  16.  Matt.  xxiv.  21,  (Comp.  Ezek, 
r.  9.  Dan.  xii.  1.  Joel  ii.  2.)  28.  Luke  xxiii.  31.  John 
i.  46.  iv.  35,  37.  In  Luke  ii.  27,  the  word  "  parents"  is 
used  in  accommodation  to  popular  or  legal  opinion.  Nolan 
indeed  argues  against  Griesbach's  preferring  "  father"  to 
"  Joseph"  in  v.  33,  from  its  being  the  language  of  an  Evan- 
gelist, and  consequently  expressive  of  his  own  opinion. 
Therefore,  he  says,  the  case  is  different  from  John  i.  46, 
where  the  sacred  historian  merely  relates  the  declaration  of 
Philip.  He  proceeds  to  say  that  "  from  Luke  ii.  48 — 50,  it 
will  appear,  that  had  St.  Luke  assigned  any  father  to  Christ 
but  God,  it  must  have  been  by  grossly  confounding  what 
23* 


an 


NOTES. 


our  Lord  had  expressly  distinguished."  Inquiry  into  the 
integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  p.  169,  Note  135.  Comp. 
also  p.  475,  Note  88. — Yet  certainly  St.  Luke  might  have 
applied  the  word  "  father"  to  Joseph,  as  he  has  the  term 
*'  parents"  to  Joseph  and  Mary,  without  exposing  himself 
to  any  such  charge.  He  merely  adopts  the  current  lan- 
guage ;  or  he  may  regard  Joseph  as  legal  father  of  Jesus. 
In  either  view,  Nolan's  ground  is  untenable.  Other  refer- 
ences might  easily  be  added,  but  they  are  supposed  to  be 
unnecessary. 

NOTE    XXXVII. 

It  would  be  easy  to  illustrate  the  truth  of  this  remark 
by  referring  merely  to  certain  places  in  the  gospel  of  St. 
John.  An  interpreter  who  presumes  it  to  be  the  author's 
design  to  refute  the  errors  of  Cerinthus,  will  very  readily  dis- 
cover the  Gnostic  Kons  in  the  former  part  of  the  first  chap- 
ter. Another  who  believes  that  the  apostle  intended  to 
attack  the  heresy  of  the  Docetse,  finds  satisfactory  evidence 
of  this,  in  the  particularity  with  which  the  account  of  our 
Lord's  death  is  detailed,  the  piercing  of  his  side  with  a 
spear,  and  the  issuing  out  of  blood  and  water.  If  it  be 
assumed,  that  the  Evangelist  wrote  in  order  to  confute  the 
notions  of  John  the  Baptist's  disciples,  that  their  master 
was  the  true  Messiah,  clear  proof  is  thought  to  be  afforded 
by  several  passages.  So  important  is  it  to  form  a  right 
view  of  the  character  and  design  of  a  writer. 

The  correctness  of  the  three  principles  laid  down  in 
the  text  will  be  allowed,  I  presume,  by  most  readers.  As 
is  the  case  with  respect  to  all  general  principles,  much  care 
is  requisite  in  applying  them ;  and  from  the  tone  and  man- 
ner of  the  author's  representations,  I  cannot  but  think  him 
disposed  to  carry  out  the  application  beyond  what  the  facts 
exhibited  in  the  scriptures  require. 


NOTES.  275 

NOTE    XXXVIII. 

In  the  preceding  remarks,  the  author  has  expressed 
himself  in  general  and  unqualified  language.  It  cannot  be 
denied,  that  the  same  principles  must  govern  the  interpreter 
of  scripture,  as  are  used  in  explaining  other  writings.  And 
yet,  the  peculiar  character  of  certain  portions  of  scripture 
is  such,  as  to  allow,  and  very  reasonably  too,  an  interpreta- 
tion, which  could  not  with  certainty  be  elicited,  without 
conceding  such  a  view  of  their  character  as  cannot  be  pre- 
tended to  apply  to  that  of  any  other  writings  extant.  1  refer 
to  whatever  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  are  really  typical 
of  events  connected  with  the  New  Dispensation ;  and  also 
to  those  portions  of  the  prophecies,  which,  while  they  declare 
truths  and  facts  in  immediate  connexion  with  that  religious 
system  under  which  the  authors  lived,  do  also  announce 
other  truths  and  facts  of  a  subsequent  age,  and  identified 
with  doctrines  and  realities  belonging  to  the  Gospel.  This 
is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  whole  subject  connected  with 
this  remark,  but  the  scriptural  fact  on  which  it  is  founded 
constitutes  a  striking  difference  between  some  portions  of 
scripture  and  ordinary  writings.  In  such  cases  therefore, 
the  allowed  principles  by  which  writings  in  general  are 
explained,  are  not  of  themselves  sufficient.  The  comment 
in  the  New  Testament,  which  can  in  no  case  be  proved  to 
be  incorrect,  must  be  regarded  by  the  Christian  expositor  in 
tlie  light  of  a  principle  beyond  the  ordinary  principles  of 
interpretation,  and  must  become  an  additional  aid  to  him  in 
eliciting  tlie  true  meaning.  Comp.  Ps.  viii.  with  Heb.  ii. 
G— 9. 

NOTE    XXXIX. 

After  some  deliberation,  I  have  concluded  to  omit  a  kw 
passages  in  some  of  the  following  paragraphs,  and  in  others 
to  modify  in  some  degree  the  author's  language,  inasmuch 


276 


NOTES. 


as  it  is  unnecessarily  strong,  even  admitting  the  correctness 
of  his  views  respecting  accommodation.  In  reference  to 
this  subject,  I  beg  leave  to  direct  the  reader's  attention  to 
Note  xli ;  at  the  same  time  requesting  him  to  keep  in 
mind  the  limitations  suggested  by  the  author  himself. 

NOTE    XL. 

This  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  important  considerations 
in  reference  to  the  explanation  of  such  moral  and  religious 
writings  as  those  in  the  Bible,  which  can  be  addressed  to 
the  understanding  and  conscience  of  an  interpreter.  The 
highest  degree  of  moral  purity,  and  the  most  extensive  and 
truest  views  of  divine  truth  which  can  now  be  attained,  in- 
asmuch as  they  bring  the  interpreter  nearest  to  the  enlight- 
ened and  holy  character  of  his  author,  place  him  in  the  best 
possible  situation  (cseteris  paribus,)  to  understand  him. 
He  can  then  enter  more  deeply  into  the  feeling  and  spirit  of 
the  sacred  writer,  especially  in  relation  to  religious  affections 
and  hopes,  which  belong  in  different  degrees  to  different 
grades  of  the  Christian  life.  The  minister  of  the  Gospel, 
who  is  to  interpret  the  holy  scriptures  to  the  people,  cannot 
have  this  principle  too  deeply  imprinted  on  his  mind. 
And  as  a  practical  principle  it  should  exercise  habitual 
influence  on  his  moral  and  religious  habits. 

Indeed,  on  this  same  principle  of  correspondence  of 
views  with  the  writer  to  be  explained,  it  may  be  added, 
that  the  more  we  enter  into  his  feelings  and  associations, 
whether  religious,  literary  or  domestic,  the  more  likely  shall 
we  be  to  seize  on  his  real  meaning.  The  reader  who  enters 
on  the  study  of  the  prophecies  relating  to  the  Messiah  with 
a  mind  stored  with  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  Hebrews, 
accustomed  to  the  figures  under  which  they  represented 
those  opinions,  well  versed  in  the  language  in  which  they 
expressed  them,  in  the  religious  and  political  usages  by 


NOTES.  277 

which  they  illustrated  them  ;  to  say  all  in  one  word,  with 
the  feelings  and  views  of  a  pious  and  intelligent  ancient 
Hebrew,  so  far  as  under  present  circumstances  they  can  be 
gained,  will  no  doubt  be  best  fitted  to  understand  and 
appreciate  those  sublime  instructions. 

NOTE    XLI. 

The  principle  of  accommodation,  which,  in  various 
degrees,  has  exercised  an  influence  on  the  interpretation  of 
scripture  from  a  very  early  age,  has,  within  the  last  half 
century,  been  applied,  and  especially  in  Germany,  with  an 
extravagance  that  sets  common  sense  and  sound  criticism 
alike  at  defiance.  A  reaction  seems  to  have  begun,  and 
interpretation  on  true  philosophical  and  Christian  principles, 
which  must  ever  be  identified,  is  gradually  making  its  way 
in  the  country  which  is  distinguished  both  for  its  sound 
philology,  and  for  hypotheses  connected  with  interpretation 
of  scripture,  the  strangeness  of  which  is  only  equalled  by 
their  utter  want  of  any  reasonable  foundation. 

Accommodation  is  known  among  writers  on  interpreta- 
tion under  various  terms.  It  is  called  (TByKord/Jao-if,  conde- 
scensio,  demissio,  obsequium,  &.c.  The  author  who  em- 
ploys it  is  said  to  speak  xar  'oiKovoyiiav,  or  ceconomically  ;  that 
is  to  say,  he  accommodates  his  course  of  reasoning  or 
remark,  by  a  wise  economy  or  arrangement,  to  the  situation 
and  character  of  those  whose  immediate  benefit  is  intended. 
In  points  which  have  no  connexion  with  religion,  the 
scriptures  do  generally  represent  the  views  of  the  age  for 
which  they  were  written  ;  and  there  seems  to  be  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  the  authors,  with  but  few  exceptions, 
entertained  any  other  views.  In  such  a  collection  of 
writings  as  that  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  would  it 
not  be  unreasonable  to  expect  opinions  in  philosophy  and 
science  which  are  based  on  the  system  of  Newton,  and 


S78  NOTES. 

which,  from  what  we  see  of  the  progressive  character  of 
human  knowledge,  it  is  evident  could  not  have  existed  in 
the  ages  of  antiquity,  except  by  inspiration?  It  seems 
unnecessary  to  illustrate  so  plain  a  point.  And  why  may 
we  not  apply  the  principle  to  other  topics  of  the  same 
general  character  ?  Why  may  it  not  be  conceded,  that  on 
some  unimportant  matters,  such  as  genealogical  records, 
and  points  of  chronology,  the  inspired  writers  adopted  the 
prevailing  opini(ms,  or,  at  least,  would  not  disturb  the  minds 
of  their  readers  or  call  off  their  thoughts  from  the  all- 
important  subject  of  religious  instruction,  by  correcting 
those  opinions.  In  such  cases,  neither  the  religious  cha- 
racter of  the  authors,  nor  the  divine  truths  which  they  were 
inspired  to  teach,  can  possibly  be  affected. 

Indeed,  a  comparison  of  different  passages  of  scripture 
would  seem  to  prove  that  such  a  concession  is  unavoidable. 
The  difficulties  of  this  kind,  which  have  been  urged  by 
sceptical  objectors  to  Christianity,  and  not  only  urged,  but 
pressed  beyond  all  reasonable  bounds,  may  indeed,  in  most 
cases,  be  triumphantly  solved.  I  do  not  know  that  any 
portions  of  scripture  have  been  supposed  to  lie  more  open  to 
such  attacks,  than  those  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke, 
which  contain  our  Lord's  genealogy.  And  yet,  to  establish 
the  objections  which  have  been  made  to  these  portions, 
much  must  be  assumed,  which  the  Christian  need  not  grant, 
and  the  sceptic  cannot  prove.  In  one  particular  indeed,  the 
case  is  of  such  a  kind,  that  it  seems  to  have  a  necessary 
bearing  on  the  subject  under  consideration. 

By  comparing  Luke  iii.  36,  with  Gen.  xi.  12,  a  discre- 
pancy in  the  genealogical  lists  will  be  discovered.  The 
Old  Testament  writer  makes  Arphaxad  the  father  of  Salah; 
the  Evangelist  by  introducing  another  name,  makes  Ar- 
phaxad the  grandfather  of  Salah,  the  immediate  son  of 
Cainan.     Although  the  word  Cainan  is  indeed  omitted  in 


NOTES.  279 

one  important  manuscript  of  the  New  Testament,  yet  the 
weight  of  evidence  in  favor  of  it  is  abundantly  sufficient  to 
determine  its  genuineness.  This  point  therefore  is  indis- 
putable. St.  Luke  agrees  with  the  reading  as  found  in  the 
Septuagint  translation.  Shall  we  therefore  say,  that  this 
translation  is  here  correct,  and  that  all  the  other  ancient 
versions,  and  the  Hebrew  original  are  wrong  ?  and  this  too, 
when  we  shall  be  obliged  to  maintain,  according  to  that 
translation,  that  Cainan  and  Salah  each  lived  130  years  be- 
fore the  birth  of  their  respective  sons,  and  each  330  after- 
wards ;  which  is  a  strange  coincidence  and  quite  improbable  ? 
Or  shall  we  not  rather  say,  that,  in  an  unimportant  point 
which  could  have  no  bearing  on  religion,  St.  Luke  adopts  the 
genealogy  as  it  existed  in  the  Septuagint  version,  which  was 
in  his  time  and  long  after  in  ordinary  use  among  his 
readers?  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  same  principle  should 
be  applied  in  a  {ew  other  instances. 

But  with  regard  to  matters  directly  religious,  or  which 
have  a  direct  bearing  on  religion,  the  case  is  far  different. 
The  Christian  interpreter  can  admit  no  accommodation  of 
sentiment  here.  It  is  true,  that  in  a  very  few  instances, 
there  will  be,  even  among  conscientious  expositors,  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  respecting  the  application  of  the  principle. 
Candid  men  with  equal  reverence  for  God's  holy  word,  will 
differ  in  determining  the  points  which  have  a  direct  bearing 
on  religion,  although  not  in  themselves  directly  religious. 
But  this  by  no  means  affects  the  principle  "itself  It  only 
shows,  that  in  some  cases  it  is  difficult  to  apply  it,  and 
leaves  such  cases  to  the  varying  judgments  of  different 
honest  and  devout  minds. 

In  points  of  a  religious  nature,  positive  accommodation 
to  error  cannot  possibly  be  allowed,  consistently  with  the 
moral  character  of  the  teacher.     It  may  indeed  be,  that 


280  NOTES. 

even  the  holiest  of  inspired  teachers  may  omit  to  inculcate 
truth,  or  may  leave  error  without  refutation.  The  cause 
may  lie  in  the  party  addressed.  He  may  be  inadequate  to 
comprehend  and  admit  certain  truths,  and  this  inadequacy 
may  arise  merely  from  want  of  previous  instruction,  or  from 
prejudices  of  education,  or  from  obduracy  and  judicial 
blindness.  Or,  again,  the  religious  object  which  the  teacher 
wishes  to  advance,  may  make  it  inexpedient,  and  even 
positively  mischievous,  to  impart  some  truths,  which  are  of 
the  very  highest  moment.  Illustrations  of  these  remarks 
must  immediately  occur  to  the  attentive  and  habitual  reader 
of  the  Gospels.  Our  Lord  tells  his  disciples,  that  he  had 
"  many  things  to  say  to  them,  but  they  could  not  bear 
them"  at  that  time.  John  xvi.  12.  He  frequently  urges 
them  not  to  make  public  his  character  as  Messiah.  On 
one  occasion  he  refuses  to  tell  on  what  authority  he  acted. 
Matt.  xxi.  27.  On  another  he  limits  his  instruction  to  the 
simple  point  of  Jonah  the  prophet  being  a  sign  to  the  Jews, 
without  informing  his  hearers,  as  he  had  done  at  a  former 
time,  wherein  the  similarity  of  the  cases  consisted.  Comp. 
Matt.  xvi.  4,  with  xii.  39,  40. — It  is  not  required  in  a 
religious  or  inspired  teacher,  nor  indeed  would  it  be  prudent 
or  right,  to  shock  the  prejudices  of  his  uninformed  hearers, 
by  inculcating  truths  which  they  are  unprepared  to  receive. 
If  he  would  reap  a  harvest,  he  must  prepare  the  ground, 
before  he  attempts  to  sow  the  seed.  Neither  is  it  required 
of  such  an  one  to  persist  in  inculcating  religious  instruction, 
after  such  evidence  of  its  rejection  as  is  sufficient  to  prove 
incurable  obstinacy.  Now  it  must  be  granted,  that  in  most 
of  these  cases  there  is  accommodation.  The  teacher  omits 
either  altogether  or  in  part  certain  religious  truths,  and  per- 
haps, truths  of  great  importance,  in  accommodation  to  the 
incompetency  and  weakness  of  those  whom  he  has  to  instruct. 


NOTES.  281 

Sometimes  also  there  may  be  accommodation  in  the 
form  in  which  religious  truth  is  conveyed.  This  may  be 
one  reason  for  adopting  the  mode  of  instruction  by  parable, 
in  order  the  more  effectually  to  insinuate  religious  truth, 
when  direct  address  would  be  inexpedient  and  perhaps 
hurtful.  For  the  same  reason  does  St.  Paul  adapt  his 
language  to  the  various  classes  of  persons  to  whom  he  is 
writing.  The  figures  and  illustrations  which  he  chooses  in 
one  epistle,  are  different  from  those  which  pervade  another ; 
and  indeed  even  in  the  same  letter,  he  judiciously  varies  his 
forms,  as  he  has  occasion  to  address  different  parties.  The 
principle  may  be  applied  to  explain  the  discrepancy  which 
has  been  alleged,  but  not  proved,  to  exist,  between  the  same 
apostle  and  St.  James  on  the  subject  of  justification.  Each 
teacher  modifies  the  form  and  language  of  his  instruction  so 
as  to  meet  the  particular  errors  of  the  persons,  whose  religious 
improvement  he  was  desirous  of  advancing.  It  applies  also 
to  several  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
form  in  which  they  are  conveyed  is  adapted  to  the  views  of 
those  for  whom  they  were  first  intended,  or  indeed  it  may 
be  that  which  is  most  in  unison  with  the  prophet's  own  feel- 
ings. Hence,  re-establishment  in  the  promised  land,  and 
peaceful  enjoyment  of  rest  and  happiness  after  the  subjuga- 
tion of  enemies,  is  the  form  in  which  the  spiritual  blessings 
of  the  Gospel  are  often  represented.  The  one  becomes  a 
figure  to  illustrate  the  other.  The  same  principle  explains 
the  use  of  symbols  as  means  of  communicating  divine  truth. 

The  form  of  instruction  may  sometimes  modify  the  rea- 
sonings of  a  divine  teacher.  He  may  argue  from  the  opinion 
of  his  hearers.  This,  I  conceive,  is  the  case  in  the  instance 
cited  by  the  author  from  Matt.  xii.  27.  "  If  I  by  Beelzebub 
cast  out  demons,  by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out?" 
Our  Lord  cannot  possibly  refer  to  his  own  disciples,  for  they 

24 


282 


NOTES. 


were  of  his  party,  and  the  calumny  vented  against  him  was 
also  equally  intended  for  them.  He  must  mean  the  Phari- 
sees' disciples.  Nor  can  it  be  admitted,  notwithstanding 
the  representations  made  by  Josephus  and  some  of  the 
fathers,  that  the  Jews,  either  before  or  during  the  life  time 
of  Christ,  were  in  the  habit  of  casting  out  demons;  for  this 
would  be  conceding  to  them  a  miraculous  power.  Whether 
a  real  expulsion  did  occasionally  take  place  or  not,  is  of  little 
consequence,  as  our  Lord's  language  implies  frequency. 
How  is  it  possible  then  to  avoid  admitting,  that  he  argues 
with  the  Pharisees  on  their  own  premises  and  not  on  the 
real  facts  of  the  case,  unless  we  grant  the  habitual  operation 
among  the  Jews  of  that  age  of  a  divine  and  miraculous  in- 
fluence? And  again,  in  the  case  of  the  young  man  who 
addressed  him  with  the  flattering  title  of  "  good,"  is  not  our 
Lord's  appeal  founded  on  the  inquirer's  ignorance  of  his 
real  character  ?  See  Matt.  xix.  16,  17.  To  a  merely 
human  teacher,  the  title,  as  the  young  man  intended  it,  was 
inapplicable. 

It  appears  then,  that  accommodation  may  be  allow- 
ed in  matters  which  have  no  connexion  with  religion, 
and  in  these  too  so  far  as  regards  the  degree  and  the  form 
of  instruction.  But  positive  accommodation  to  religious 
error  is  not  to  be  found  in  scripture,  neither  is  it  justifiable 
on  moral  principles. 

The  author  not  only  maintains  that  the  apostles  accom- 
modated to  erroneous  views,  but  also  that  some  of  them  at 
least  did  themselves  hold  such  views  in  common  with  their 
age.  The  former  point  has  already  been  considered  and 
limited.  What  is  the  evidence  alleged  to  prove  the  latter  ? 
The  early  history  and  education  of  the  apostles,  their  asso- 
ciations before  they  became  connected  with  Christ,  and  the 
incorrect  views  which  they  maintained  after  this  connexion. 


NOTES.  283 

— The  early  history  of  the  apostles,  and  even  the  erroneous 
opinions  which  they  cherished  before  our  Lord's  ascension, 
constitute  no  proof  that  erroneous  views  are  to  be  discovered 
in  their  writings ;  for,  by  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  and  subsequently,  their  minds  were 
enlightened,  and,  agreeably  to  the  promise  of  Christ,  they 
were  "  guided  into  all  the  truth"  of  his  religion.  That  they 
clung  to  the  expectation  of  an  earthly  reign  of  the  Messiah 
after  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  cannot  be  proved,  and 
indeed  is  evidently  untrue.  That  in  common  with  a  large 
proportion  of  their  countrymen  the  apostles  had  at  first  im- 
bibed the  notion  of  a  temporal  Messiah,  is  quite  plain  from 
the  Gospels,  and  the  error  is  referred  to  by  St.  Paul  as  one 
which  he  had  formerly  indulged.  "Though  we  have  known 
Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  know  we  him  (in 
this  manner)  no  more."  2  Cor.  v.  IG.  Indeed,  it  appears 
from  the  question  of  the  apostles  in  Acts  i.  6,  "Wilt  thou  at 
this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  1"  that  subsequently 
to  our  Lord's  resurrection,  the  same  secular  feeling  predo- 
minated. But  that  so  gross  an  error,  and  one  so  incon- 
sistent with  spiritual  views  of  Christ's  religion,  was  retained 
in  after  life,  is  a  charge  which  cannot  be  sustained,  and  is 
inconsistent  with  the  promise  just  referred  to.  It  were 
strange  indeed,  if,  in  a  point  of  such  vital  importance  as 
this,  "  their  master  had  given  them  no  particular  informa- 
tion." Even  our  Lord's  discourses  in  the  gospels  abound 
with  instruction  on  this  subject.  Should  it  even  be  ad- 
mitted that  they  did  not  make  such  impressions  during  his 
life  time  as  might  reasonably  have  been  expected,  it  would 
still  be  impossible  for  any  one  who  believes  the  scriptures  to 
doubt,  that  the  Spirit  not  only  communicated  additional 
knowledge  to  the  apostles,  but  also  brought  to  their  remem- 
brance the  partly  forgotten  truths  respecting  the  celestial 


284 


NOTES. 


nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  which  he  had  often  inculcated. 
See  John  xiv.  26.  xvi.  13.  Dr.  Planck  does  indeed  restrict 
the  application  of  the  principle  under  review  to  "things, 
which  properly  speaking  do  not  belong  to  religious  truths." 
I  have  already  remarked,  that  in  determining  the  extent  of 
this  restriction,  honest  and  candid  interpreters  must  be 
allowed  to  differ.  But  if  the  expectation  of  an  earthly  reign 
of  the  Messiah  be  not  a  religious  error,  it  will  be  difficult  to 
know  how  to  distinguish  it. 

Respecting  the  other  point  adduced  by  the  author, 
attachment  to  Jewish  peculiarities  and  Levitical  ceremonies, 
the  evidence  is  equally  doubtful.  It  is  true  that  even  after 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  St.  Peter  does  give  evidence  of 
such  attachment.  If  St.  Paul  enjoined  or  practised  any  of 
the  Jewish  ceremonies,  it  was  only  under  peculiar  circum- 
stances, which  prompted  him,  like  a  wise  and  benevolent 
man,  to  yield  to  prejudices,  when  he  could  do  so  inno- 
cently to  himself,  and  with  beneficial  influence  on  others. 
Under  circumstances  of  a  contrary  kind  he  was  warm  in 
his  opposition.  See  Gal.  v.  2.  The  same  general  princi- 
ples and  views  may  be  presumed  to  have  been  maintained 
by  the  apostles  in  general,  as  no  evidence  can  be  adduced 
to  the  contrary.  A  suspicion  of  an  opposite  kind  would 
be  derogatory  to  their  character  as  enlightened  teachers  of 
Christianity,  "  guided"  by  the  Spirit  of  truth.  Neither  is 
there  any  scriptural  evidence  that  St.  Peter  cherished  his 
former  attachment  to  Levitical  rites,  after  the  instruction 
imparted  to  him  on  this  subject  by  the  vision  of  the  "  great 
sheet."  By  it  God  had  "  showed  him  that  he  should  not 
call  any  man  common  or  unclean."  Acts  x.  28.  The 
narrative  referred  to  in  Gal.  ii.  11 — 14,  proves  nothing  in 
reference  to  his  sentiments  ;  it  only  shows  that  his  conduct 
was  culpable.      And  indeed  this  is  the  view  which  the 


NOTES.  285 

author  of  the  epistle  takes  of  it.  He  says  that  "  Peter  was 
to  be  blamed  ;"  that  "  he  separated  himself  from  the  Gen- 
tiles," not  through  attachment  to  the  Jewish  ritual,  but 
"through  fear  of  the  Jews,"  that  he  "dissembled,"  along 
with  other  Jewish  converts,  and  that  even  "  Barnabas 
was  carried  away  with  their  dissimulation."  Here  is  no 
charge  of  weak  and  childish  fondness  for  old  prejudices, 
bujt  of  conduct  "  not  according  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.'"* 
I  cannot  therefore  acquiesce  in  the  view  of  the  author. 
Nor  can  I  assent  to  the  remark  of  Mr.  Locke  in  his  note 
on  Rom.  xvi.  25,  that  "  St.  Peter  would  not  have  incurred 
St.  Paul's  reproof,  if  he  had  been  as  clear  as  St.  Paul  was" 
in  the  doctrine  of  "  the  law  of  Moses  being  abolished  by 
the  death  of  Christ." 

The  author's  three  limitations  do  appear  sufficient  to 
guard  the  principle  of  accommodation  against  abuse  if 
properly  applied.  And  it  is  evident  to  me,  that  the  first 
and  last  are  both  applicable  in  relation  to  the  cases  just 
stated  ;  and  consequently  accommodation  cannot  there  be 
allowed. 

NOTE    XLII. 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  and  other  Christian  writers  of  the  second 
and  third  centuries,  abound  with  allegorical  interpretations. 
The  works  also  erroneously  ascribed  by  some  to  Clement  of 
Rome,  and  to  the  apostle  Barnabas,  contain  specimens  of 
allegorical  trifling,  worthy  of  the  Jewish  Cabbala.     Antece- 


♦  Since  writinEf  the  above,  I  find  that  Knapp  has  given  the  same 
view  of  this  inattcr.  The  reader  is  referred  to  an  Essay  on  "  the  doc- 
trines of  Paul  and  James  respecting  failh  and  worlis,  coinp.Tred  with 
the  teaching  of  our  Lord,  translated  from  the  '  Scrinta  vani  artjumenti,' 
by  William  Thompson,"  and  published  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  vol. 
iii.  pp.  189,  ss.  and  especially  p.  219. 

24* 


286 


NOTES. 


dently  to  our  Lord's  appearance  in  the  world,  the  Jews 
were  accustomed  to  this  method  of  exposition.  It  appears  to 
have  arisen  after  the  establishment  of  the  synagogue  ser- 
vice during  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  to  have  flourish- 
ed principally  at  Alexandria.  Most  probably  it  may  be 
traced  to  the  disposition  of  some  Jews  to  imitate  the  Greek 
philosophers,  who,  with  Plato  at  their  head,  were  accus- 
tomed to  explain  their  mythology  by  the  aid  of  allegory. 
The  fact  that  this  method  of  interpretation  did  prevail  among 
the  Jews  is  proved  from  the  writings  of  Philo,  and  from  the 
allegorical  expositions  or  Medrashim,  still  to  be  found  in 
very  ancient  Jewish  books,  and  quoted  by  their  most  dis- 
tinguished commentators.  The  reader  will  find  many  such 
interpretations  from  the  Talmuds,  the  book  called  Sohar  or 
Zohar,*  and  the  old  extensive  commentary,  entitled  Bere- 
shith  Rabba,  quoted  by  Schoettgen,  in  his  work  on  the  Mes- 
siah. 

But  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  the  early  Christian 
converts  must  have  fallen  into  the  same  method  of  interpre- 
tation. The  language  of  the  author  appears  to  be  unguard- 
ed, and  his  representations  not  susceptible  of  proof  He 
seems  to  presume  that  extravagant  allegorical  interpretation 
was  universal  with  the  Jews ;  which  need  not  by  any 
means  be  allowed.  Again  he  presumes  that  Jewish  con- 
verts could  have  no  other  system  of  exposition  ;  whereas  it 
is  clear  that  their  reception  of  Christianity  might  have  im- 
parted simpler  and  more  intelligent  views,  and  in  all  pro- 
bability this  was  often  the  fact. — '  The  converts  from  Hea- 
thenism would  naturally  receive  Jewish  principles  of  inter- 

*  This  work  which  is  so  called  from  the  word  inir  splendor,  is  gene- 
rally believed  by  the  .lews  to  he  the  production  of  Rabbi  Simeon,  the 
son  of  JocHAi,  a  pupil  of  Rabbi  Akiba,  and  to  have  been  written  about 
the  year  120,  in  a  cave,  where  the  author  was  obliged  to  conceal  himself 
through  fear  of  the  emperor  Adrian.  See  Wolf's  Bibliotheca  Hebraica, 
vol  iv.  p.  1012,  3. 


NOTES.  287 

pretation,  inasmuch  as  they  received  the  Jewish  scriptures.' 
But  this  conclusion  by  no  means  follows.  Because  they 
admitted  as  divine  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  must 
it  be  inferred  that  they  admitted  also  all  the  cabbalistical 
puerilities  of  allegorical  triflers?  Is  it  to  be  taken  for 
granted  that  the  great  body  of  Gentile  converts  adopted, 
with  the  credulous  facility  of  unthinking  and  unsuspicious 
children,  the  mass  of  insipid  and  disconnected  comments, 
which  oral  tradition  had  heaped  together,  because  they  re- 
ceived from  men  who  had  been  Jews  "  the  lively  oracles" 
of  God  1  But  how  did  they  "  receive  the  holy  scriptures  of 
the  Hebrews"  ?  Not  as  the  author's  representation  would 
lead  us  to  suppose,  from  weak  Jews  incompetent  to  teach 
them  the  true  meaning  of  the  Bible ;  but  from  inspired 
apostles,  or  from  persons  directly  or  indirectly  commission- 
ed by  the  apostles  ;  from  "  faithful  men,"  well  taught  in 
Christian  truth  themselves,  "  and  able  to  teach  others  also." 
So  far  then  from  having  been  instructed  in  the  silly  trifles 
of  Jewish  allegory,  the  first  converts  must  have  been  imbued 
with  the  plain,  simple  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
made  acquainted  with  the  facts  which  it  narrates  as  matters 
of  historic  truth. 

Now  if  we  examine  the  very  few  documents  of  the  ear- 
liest age  which  are  still  extant,  we  shall  find  that  they  do 
not  support  the  author  in  the  view  that  he  has  taken.  Ro 
senmueller  indeed  represents  the  interpretation  of  the  first 
century  as  characterized  by  allegory,  not  excepting  the 
writings  of  the  apostles  themselves,  who  explained  the  Old 
Testament  according  to  the  manner  of  their  nation  ;  popu- 
larium  suorum  consuetudinem  secuti  sunt.*  His  proof  is 
drawn  principally  from  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  cele- 

»  See  J.  Geobgii  Rosenmuelleri  Historia  Interpretationis  in  Ec- 
clesia  Christiana,  Part  I.  pp.  14.  ss. 


288  NOTES. 

brated  passage  in  Galatians,  and  one  or  two  figurative  il- 
lustrations in  Corinthians  and  Ephesians.  This  might  of 
course  have  been  expected  from  the  loose  views  of  inspira- 
tion entertained  by  him,  in  common  with  the  neological 
divines  of  Germany.  But  even  Rosenmueller  can  find 
scarcely  any  thing  in  the  writings  of  the  apostolical  fathers, 
to  prove  the  general  prevalence  of  allegorical  exposition 
among  Christians  of  their  age.  The  letter  of  Clement  of 
Rome  to  the  Corinthians  is  a  beautiful  specimen  of  simpli- 
city and  purity,  more  resembling  the  inspired  epistles  of 
the  New  Testament,  than  any  composition  extant.  He 
very  often  alludes  to  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
combines  several  together.  He  quotes  from  it  not  with 
exact  verbal  accuracy,  but,  like  the  apostles,  according  to 
the  sense  of  the  author.  And  yet,  in  this  very  long  letter, 
only  one  decidedly  allegorical  interpretation  is  to  be  found. 
It  occurs  in  the  twelfth  chapter,  where  the  scarlet  rope 
which  Rahab  was  to  fasten  from  the  window  of  her  house 
as  a  sign  to  the  destroying  Hebrews,*  is  represented  as  in- 
dicating redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  Surely  if  Cle- 
ment was  devoted  to  the  allegorical  system  of  interpreta- 
tion, his  work  might  reasonably  be  expected  to  afford  more 
than  one  solitary  illustration.  The  want  of  others  cannot 
be  accounted  for  by  his  not  commenting  on  the  passages 
quoted.  Indeed  this  very  fact  affords  argument  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  charge  advanced  against  him,  inasmuch  as  the 
admirers  of  that  system  would  not  fail  to  exhibit  to  their 
readers  the  supposed  allegorical  instruction  afforded  by  the 
quotations. 

The  same  remarks  might  be  made  in  relation  to  the 
seven  epistles  of  Ignatius.  A  discussion  respecting  their 
genuineness  would  here  be  out  of  place.     The  contrary  has 

♦Josh.  ii.  18. 


NOTES.  289 

never  yet  been  proved,  nor  have  the  arguments  alleged  in 
their  defence  ever  been  satisfactorily  answered.  Bishop 
Pearson's  Vindiciae  is  the  store-house,  from  which  modern 
defenders  of  the  smaller  epistles  of  Ignatius  have  drawn 
their  weapons.  There  are  some  obscure  places  in  these 
ancient  letters,  but  no  allegory. — The  epistle  of  Polycarp 
to  the  Philippians  also  contains  many  quotations  from  the 
New  Testament,  but  no  allegory.* — Whether  the  Shep- 
herd of  Her  mas  was  written  in  the  first  or  second  century 
is  somewhat  doubtful.  It  is  itself  an  allegory  or  a  series  of 
allegories  ;  but  it  is  worthy  of  consideration,  that  it  contains 

NO  ALLEGORICAL  EXPOSITIONS. 

NOTE    XLIII. 

The  author  refers  to  the  opinions  of  the  early  millena- 
ries, that  preparatory  to  the  earthly  reign  of  Christ,  there 
should  be  a  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of  the  saints,  with  all 
their  ordinary  properties  and  propensities,  fitting  them  for 
the  enjoyment  of  corporeal  delights.  The  reader  may  see 
proof  of  this  opinion  having  been  entertained  in  Whitby's 
"  Treatise  of  the  true  Millenium,"  chap.  i.  §  iv.,  at  the  end 
of  his  commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  fol.  London, 
1727. 

NOTE    XLIV. 

SeeErnesti'sdissertation,deOrigineInterpretationislibro- 
rum  sacrorum  grammaticae  auctore,  in  hisOpuscula  philologi- 
ca  Critica,  177G,  pp.  288,  ss.  A  translation  of  it  may  be  found 

*  Dr.  Frederic  Luecke,  in  his  able,  though  somewhat  mystical  com- 
mentary on  the  writings  of  the  Evangelist  John,  says,  (Introduction  to 
the  first  epistle,  p.  3)  that  Polyearp's  epistle  to  the  Philippians  cannot  be 
proved  to  be  spurious,  and  has  never  yet  been  proved  to  be  corrupted. 
From  such  a  man  this  attestation  ought  to  be  considered  as  entitled  to 
great  weight. 


290 


NOTES. 


in  Professor  Hodge's  Biblical  Repertory,  Vol.  III.,  No.  2, 
pp.  245 — 260.  Rosenmueller,  in  his  History  of  Interpreta- 
tion before  referred  to,  thinks  that  Ernesti  has  been  as  libe- 
ral in  his  praises  of  Origen,  as  others  have  been  in  their 
censures.  See  Pars  iii.  p.  22,  15.5.  And  yet  Erasmus 
does  not  hesitate  to  say,  "  plus  me  docet  Christiana;  philo- 
sophise unica  Origenis  pagina,  quam  decern  Augustini." 
This,  says  Jortin,  is  "  laudari  a  viro  laudato."  See  his 
remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  Vol.  ii.  p.  112.  Lond. 
1805.  Some  judicious  scholars,  however,  have  thought 
such  praise  extravagant. 

NOTE  XLV. 

An  account  of  the  early  pietistical  controversies  may  be 
found  in  Mosheim,  Cent.  xvii.  Sect.  ii.  Part  ii.  chap.  i. 
§  xxvi,  ss.  Both  he  and  Schroeckh  speak  in  the  most  ex- 
alted terms  of  Spener,  the  reviver  of  the  study  of  the 
Bible,  as  a  man  of  learning  and  piety,  lamenting  at  the 
same  time  the  consequences  which  resalted  from  the  inju- 
dicious zeal  of  some  of  his  followers.  Among  the  most 
distinguished  of  the  pietists  was  Francke,  founder  of  the 
orphan  house  at  Halle,  (a  man  not  to  be  mentioned  without 
the  highest  respect  for  his  assiduous  labors,  and  for  his 
faithful  dependence  on  God  in  pressing  difficulties ;)  and 
Rambach,  a  most  respectable  scholar,  and  pious  Christian 
divine.  The  editor  of  the  lectures  of  Morus  on  Herme- 
neutics,  A.  Eichstaedt,  whose  views  on  the  subject  of  in- 
terpretation are  directly  opposed  to  those  of  the  pietists, 
and  who  does  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  they  "  pressed  on 
every  letter,  hunted  out  pregnant  senses,  and  trifled  with 
emphases,"  awards  no  slight  praise  to  Rambach.  He  not 
only  records  the  judgment  of  Buddseus,  Wollius,  and  others, 
that  this  writer's  superiority  entirely  eclipsed  all  others  of 


NOTES.  291 

this  class,  but  gives  his  own  opinion  as  follows.  "  Any 
one  who  estimates  fairly  the  good  and  the  bad,  and  makes 
a  proper  allowance  for  the  period  in  which  Rambach  lived, 
will  undoubtedly  praise  the  learning  of  the  man,  who  ac- 
quired more  by  reading  than  his  censurers  listened  to ;  he 
will  approve  the  correctness  of  his  logical  precepts  ;  nor 
will  he  be  surprised,  that  his  compendium  acquired  such 
authority,  as  to  be  very  much  used  in  schools,  and  illustra- 
ted by  some  learned  men  in  works  written  expressly  for  the 
purpose."  See  his  Preface  to  Mori  Ilermeneutica,  pp. 
XXV,  xxvii. 

The  remark  of  Dr.  Planck,  that  "it  was  a  very  common 
usage  with  the  Greeks,  to  employ  compound  words  inter- 
changeably with  the  simple,"  is  by  no  means  necessarily 
applicable  to  the  word  iircpvipuinc.  The  i-cp  is  evidently  in- 
tensive, and  the  compound  term  expresses  great  elevation, 
agreeably  to  our  own  version,  "  highly  exalted  ;  the  same 
as  vipuM,  but  more  emphatic."  Robinson's  Lexicon,  from 
Wahl's  Clavis. — So  also  the  vTrcp  in  vrrcpviKoiiui',  Rom.  viii.  37, 
which  is  expressive  of  the  completeness  of  the  conquest,  and 
very  well  rendered  by  Dr.  Bloomfield,  "we  are  triumphant- 
ly victorious."  See  an  article  in  the  Biblical  Repository, 
"on  the  force  of  the  Greek  prepositions  in  compound  verbs, 
as  employed  in  the  New  Testament,  by  J.  A.  II.  Tittmann, 
translated  by  the  editor."     Vol.  iii.  pp.  45,  ss. 

NOTE  XLVI. 

If  the  author  had  lived  to  the  present  time,  he  would 
have  seen  his  anticipations  realized.  Indeed,  the  extrava- 
gant and  licentious  wildness  of  some  among  the  late  Ger- 
man commentators,  is  far  beyond  what  he  could  with  any 
reason  have  expected. 


293  NOTES. 


NOTE  XLVII. 

For  a  notice  of  other  works  on  Interpretation,  and,  in 
general,  on  the  whole  Bible,  or  on  particular  books,  the 
reader  may  consult  Horne's  Introduction,  as  referred  to  in 
Note  XII.*  Since  the  publication  of  Dr.  Horne's  sixth  edi- 
tion, a  new  translation  of  Ernesti's  Institutio,  by  the  Rev. 
C.  H.  Terrot,  has  appeared  as  the  first  and  second  volumes 
of  the  Biblical  Cabinet,  published  at  Edinburgh,  in  1832. 

Although  I  am  aware  that  several  of  the  works  men- 
tioned by  the  author  might  have  been  omitted,  without  any 
injury  to  this  Introduction  as  a  manual  for  the  American 
student ;  yet  I  have  not  felt  myself  justified  in  rejecting  the 
title  of  any  book,  which  he  thought  proper  to  introduce,  in 
order  to  illustrate  the  literature  of  his  country,  in  the  de- 
partments under  review.  Should  a  more  extensive  list  of 
such  works  be  desired,  it  may  be  found  in  E.  F.  K.  Rosen- 
mueller's  Handbuch,  or  Manual  for  the  Literature  of 
Biblical  Criticism  and  Interpretation,  and  G.  B.  Winer's 
Handbuch,  or  Manual  of  Theological  Literature,  princi- 
pally of  Protestant  Germany. 

The  reader  cannot  fail  to  observe,  that  the  works  men- 
tioned by  the  author  are  principally  those  of  his  own  coun- 

*  In  this  work,  which  is  within  the  reach  of  students  in  general,  so 
full  a  notice  of  English  and  other  publications  may  be  seen,  as  to  make 
it  superfluous  to  insert  a  list  of  them  here.  The  learned  author  furnish- 
es his  readers  with  notices  of  "general  Bibliographical  works  on  the 
editions,  literary  history,  criticism,  cVc.  of  the  Bible,"  then  with  accounts 
of  "entire  texts  and  versions  of  the  Bible,"  both  ancient  and  modern. 
To  these  he  adds  works  on  "  Sacred  Philology,  or  the  criticism  and  in- 
terpretation of  the  scriptures."  These  comprehend  "treatises  on  the 
canon  of  scripture  and  on  apocryphal  books  ;  introductions  to  the  study 
of  the  scriptures  ;  treatises  on  the  sacred  text,  its  style,  idiom,  and  ver- 
sions ;  on  the  original  languages  of  scripture,  and  grammars  and  lexi- 
cons thereof;  commentaries  and  paraphrases  :  concordances  and  dic- 
tionaries, common  place  books,  indexes  and  analyses  of  the  Bible  ;"  and 
lastly,  "treatises  on  Bibhcal  antiquities,  and  on  other  historical  circum- 
stances of  the  Bible." 


NOTES.  293 

trymen,  the  most  prominent  of  which  is  Luther's  Bible. 
If  he  should  be  surprised,  that  the  translator  has  added 
nothing  respecting  our  own  version,  and  other  English  works 
of  great  judgment  and  learning,  he  is  requested  to  ascribe 
the  omission,  not  to  a  want  of  due  regard  for  their  eminent 
merit,  but  simply  for  the  reason  above  suggested,  and  from 
an  unwillingness  to  swell  his  book  into  a  large  volume. 

NOTE    XLVIII. 

These  Programs  were  afterwards  altered  and  enlarged 
by  their  author,  and  gave  rise  to  his  Historia  Interpretationis, 
the  work  referred  to  in  Note  xlii.  His  assertions  respecting 
the  character  of  the  interpretation  of  the  first  century, 
and  of  the  first  half  of  the  second,  except  as  applied  to  the 
epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas  the  Apostle,  are  certainly  un- 
founded. 

NOTE    XLIX. 

It  must  be  exceedingly  gratifying  to  a  candid  mind  to 
hear  a  Lutheran  divine  bear  such  full  and  unequivocal  testi- 
mony in  favor  of  Calvin.  With  ad  the  faults  of  this  celebra- 
ted reformer,  (and  "who  can  understand  bis  own?")  he  must 
be  allowed  to  have  been  a  man  of  extraordinary  industry 
and  intellect.  A  divine  of  the  church  of  England,  who,  on 
comparison,  will  not  be  found  inferior  in  profoundness  of 
thought  and  elevation  of  character  to  the  greatest  and  best 
of  any  age  or  country,  speaks  of  him  as  "  incomparably  the 
wisest  man  that  ever  the  French  church  did  enjoy,  since  the 
hour  it  enjoyed  him."  Hooker's  Preface  to  his  Ecclesias- 
tical Polity,  §  2,  beginning.  A  new  and  cheap  edition  of  Cal- 
vin's Commentary  on  St.  Paul's  epistles,  including  the  He- 
brews, was  published  in  three  neat  and  closely  printed  octavo 
volumes  at  Halle  in  1831,  by  Professor  Tholuck. 
25 


294  NOTES. 


NOTE    L. 

Compare  the  remark  made  in  Note  xi.,  towards  the  end. 
Among  the  late  works  on  the  whole  Bible,  the  following 
must  not  be  past  over.  The  writings  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  translated  by  J.  C.  W.  Augusti  and  W.  M. 
L.  DE  Wette,  in  6  vols.  8vo.,  Heidelberg,  1809—1814. 
The  work  is  in  German,  and  comprehends  the  Apocrypha. 
It  is  divided  into  Sections,  and  in  addition  to  the  translation, 
the  authors  give  occasionally,  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  other 
versions  of  difficult  passages,  which  had  been  differently 
rendered  by  other  critics. — A  valuable  work  for  the  biblical 
student,  is  the  Latin  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  by 
J.  A.  Dathe,  in  G  vols.  8vo.,  Halle,  1784-1794.  The  text, 
in  neat  and  plain  Latin,  is  accompanied  by  a  few  short  notes 
on  difficult  places,  which  in  general  are  clear  and  instructive. 
It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  on  some  of  the  subjects  connected 
with  the  first  part  of  Genesis,  the  author  has  adopted  an 
interpretation,  agreeing  for  the  most  part  with  the  views  of 
Eichhorn. — Rosenjiueller's  (Ern.  Fred.  Cha.)  Scholia 
in  Vetus  Testamentum  is  well  known.  The  3d  edition, 
so  improved  by  the  author  that  it  may  be  regarded  as 
a  new  work,  began  to  be  published  at  Leipzig  in  1821  ; 
it  is  not  yet  completed.  The  volumes  that  have  been  pub- 
lished are  the  following.  On  the  Pentateuch,  3;  on  Job, 
1;  on  the  Psalms,  3;  on  the  writings  of  Solomon,  2; 
on  Isaiah,  3 ;  on  Jeremiah,  2 ;  on  Ezekiel,  2 ;  on  Daniel,  1 ; 
and  on  the  Minor  Prophets,  4.* — A  compendium  of  this  work, 
compiled,  under  the  inspection  of  the  author,t  is  also  in 
progress,  and  several  volumes  have  already  been  published. 

*An  additional  volume  on  the  historical  books,  is  now  preparing  for 
publication. 

t  By  J.  C.  S.  Lechner. 


NOTES.  295 

The  theological  views  of  Rosenmueller  are  so  well  known, 
that  it  must  be  unnecessary  to  caution  the  reader  to  be  on 
his  guard  against  their  influence.* — The  Commentary  of 
Patrick,  Lowtii,  Arnald,  and  Whitby,  on  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  including  the  Apocrypha,  are  of  estab- 
lished reputation.  The  reader  will  find  in  them  a  vast  fund 
of  valuable  matter. — Gill's  and  Dodd's  Expositions  are  par- 
ticularly worthy  of  his  attention. — Poole's  Annotations 
upon  the  Holy  Bible,  in  two  volumes  folio,  is  also  a  valuable 
work,  which  the  English  reader  may  consult  with  great 
profit.  The  notes  in  general  are  brief,  and  contain  solu- 
tions of  the  principal  difficulties,  with  replies  to  objections. 
See  Home,  pp.  205—208. 

NOTE    LI. 

It  is  entitled  :  The  family  expositor,  &.c.  The  seventh 
edition  with  a  life  of  the  author  by  Andrew  Kippis,  D.  D., 
was  published  at  London,  1792,  in  six  volumes,  8vo;  and 
lately  an  edition  has  appeared  in  one  very  large  octavo  vol- 
ume, 1825.  The  critical  notes  are  valuable  for  their  learning 
and  good  sense  ;  the  paraphrase  rather  enfeebles  the  text ; 
the  practical  improvement  is  excellent. 

NOTE  LII. 

This  is  the  same  Rosenmueller  who  wrote  the  History 
of  Interpretation  before  mentioned  in  Note  xlii,  and  the 
student  who  consults  his  work  should  keep  in  view  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  author  as  there  intimated.  For  a  fuller  ac- 
count of  Koppe's  publication,  see  Home,  p.  242-3.  Hein- 
RiCHs,  a  very  prominent  commentator  in  that  work,  is  to  be 
read  with  caution,  especially  on  the  Hebrews. — In  1827, 

♦  For  a  literary  notice  of  the  Compendium  by  Professor  Stuart,  see 
Biblical  Repository,  vol.  ii.  pp.  210,  S3. 


296  NOTES. 

Dr.  S.  T.  Bloomfield  published  his  Recensio  Synoptica, 
or  critical  digest  and  synoptical  arrangement  of  the  most 
important  annotations  on  the  New  Testament,  &c.  Lon- 
don, 8  vols.  8vo.  Mr.  Home,  p.  248,  gives  a  particular  ac- 
count of  this  most  laborious  work.  The  same  learned 
author  published  last  year  a  new  edition  of  "  the  Greek 
Testament,  with  English  notes,  critical,  philological,  and 
exegetical,  in  two  vols."  8vo.  It  is  beautifully  printed,  at 
Cambridge.  The  text,  which  is  "formed  on  the  basis  of 
the  last  edition  of  R.  Stephens,  adopted  by  Mill,"  without 
"  deviation,  except  on  the  most  preponderating  evidence," 
(Preface,  p.  x.)  occupies  the  upper  part  of  the  page,  and 
the  notes,  in  two  columns,  the  lower.  This  is  probably  the 
most  useful  single  publication  that  the  student  of  the  New 
Testament  can  procure.  The  indefatigable  author  has  ac- 
cumulated a  mass  of  valuable  information,  of  which  his 
work  contains  more  than  any  other  similar  one  of  its  size. 
From  the  brevity  of  its  plan,  the  young  interpreter  may  oc- 
casionally find  somewhat  of  obscurity.  To  avoid  this  in  all 
cases,  when  so  much  matter  is  condensed,  is  perhaps  im- 
possible ;  it  would  certainly  be  unreasonable  to  expect  it. 

NOTE  LIII. 

This  refers  to  the  theory,  that  Moses  composed  the 
book  of  Genesis  from  previously  existing  documents,  some 
of  which  were  probably  written  by  the  earlier  patriarchs. 
For  an  account  of  this  theory,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Jahn's  Introduction,  Part  ii.  §  16,  with  the  notes. — The 
Rev.  George  Bush,  assistant  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Ori- 
ental literature  in  the  New- York  University,  has  published 
in  three  volumes,  12mo.,  a  work  which  may  be  read  with 
much  profit.  It  is  entitled  :  Questions  on  Genesis,  Exodus, 
and  Leviticus,  with  Notes. 


NOTES.  297 


NOTE  LIV. 

As  this  work  contains  some  interpretations  exceedingly 
forced,  and  explains  allegorically  most  of  the  history  in  the 
first  three  chapters  of  Genesis,  tlie  reader  who  examines  it 
would  do  well  to  read  in  connexion  with  it  a  Dissertation 
on  the  Fall  of  Man,  by  the  Rev.  George  Holden,  M.  A., 
London,  1823. 

NOTE  LV. 

This  work,  written  originally  in  German,  w^as  translated 
into  English  by  Alexander  Smith,  D.  D.,  and  published 
at  London,  in  1814,  in  4  vols.  8vo.  See  Home,  p.  303, 
who  suggests  that  it  should  be  "  consulted  with  great  cau- 
tion," as  it  partakes  of  the  character  of  many  modern  Ger- 
man publications.  Michaelis  is  undoubtedly  very  prone  to 
indulge  in  conjectural  criticism. 

NOTE    LYI. 

These  notes  on  the  Hagiographa  are  exceedingly  useful. 
They  are  not  all  by  the  author  to  whom  they  are  ascribed 
by  Planck.  Those  on  Ruth,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  and  Eccle- 
siastes,  are  by  John  James  Rambach,  edited  by  J.  H. 
Michaelis  ;  those  on  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Job,  the  Psalms, 
and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  are  by  the  last  named  writer; 
and  tliose  on  Proverbs,  Lamentations  and  Daniel,  by  Chris- 
tian BENEDICT  Michaelis. — De  Wette's  Introduction  to 
the  Psalms,  translated  from  his  Commentary  by  J.  Torrey, 
Professor  of  languages  in  the  University  of  Vermont,  may 
be  found  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  iii.  pp.  445,  ss. 

25* 


298 


NOTES. 


NOTE    LVII. 

In  addition  to  the  works  on  this  subject  mentioned  by 
Home,  pp.  185,  ss.,  a  treatise  written  by  John  Smith,  fel- 
low of  Queen's  College,  Cambridge,  is  worthy  of  notice. 
It  may  be  found  in  the  4th  volume  of  Watson's  Tracts, 
pp.  297,  ss. — Among  the  latest  and  most  valuable  publications 
on  this  subject,  may  be  mentioned  Christologie  des  Alten 
Testaments  und  Commentar  ueber  die  Messianischen  Weis- 
sagungen  der  Propheten,  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  Commentary  on  the  prophecies  relating  to  the  Messiah, 
by  Dr.  E.  W.  Henstenberg.  The  first  part  of  this  work, 
in  two  thin  octavo  volumes,  containing  a  general  introduc- 
tion, prophecies  in  the  Pentateuch,  Psalms,  and  Isaiah,  with 
discussions  connected  with  the  subject,  was  published  at 
Berlin  in  1829.  It  has  been  translated  into  English  by 
Professor  Keith,  of  the  Episcopal  Theological  Seminary, 
Alexandria,  and  will  very  soon  be  published.  The  second 
part,  containing  a  Commentary  on  Zechariah  and  Daniel's 
seventy  weeks,  made  its  appearance  in  1832.  Between 
the  publication  of  these  two  parts,  the  learned  author  issued 
an  able  defence  of  the  authenticity  of  Daniel  against  the 
objections  of  Bertholdt  and  others,  and  of  the  integrity  of 
Zechariah,  in  one  volume,  8vo.,  Berlin,  1831.  These  works 
are  among  the  very  best  of  the  late  German  Theological 
productions. 

NOTE    LVIII. 

For  a  notice  of  this  work,  and  the  discussions  it  gave 
rise  to  respecting  the  genuineness  of  some  of  Isaiah's  prophe- 
cies, see  Jahn's Introduction,  Part  II.  (§  104,  note  a)  pp.  350,  s. 
The  latest  work  on  Isaiah  is  the  Commentary  of  Gesenius,  in 
three  vols.  8vo.,  very  learned,  but,  as  might  be  supposed  from 
the  author's  known  principles,  neological. 


NOTES.  299 


NOTE    LIX. 

In  addition  to  the  work  of  Hengstenberg  mentioned  in 
Note  Lvii.,  the  following  publication  is  particularly  worthy  of 
notice.  Commentar  ueber  das  Buch  Daniel,  Commentary 
on  the  book  of  Daniel,  by  H.  A.  C.  Haevernick.  Hamburg, 
1832.  This  is  a  learned,  orthodox  and  able  Commentary. 
The  author  is  a  friend  of  Hengstenberg,  and  has  recently 
been  settled  as  a  Professor  in  the  new  Theological  School 
at  Geneva,  Switzerland.  He  is  said  to  be  "  a  devoted  Chris- 
tian, and  deeply  skilled  in  the  Oriental  languages." 

NOTE    LX. 

In  Home,  pp.  113,  ss.  a  full  account  may  be  seen  of 
Harmonies  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  of  the  four 
Gospels,  of  parts  of  the  Gospels,  and  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  with  the  Apostolic  Epistles.  Newcome's  Har- 
mony of  the  Gospels,  which  is  probably  more  used  than  any 
other,  was  published  at  Andover,  in  1814,  in  one  vol.  8vo, 
It  is  "reprinted  from  the  text  and  select  various  readings  of 
Griesbach." 

NOTE    LXI. 

A  notice  of  other  works  on  St.  John's  Gospel  may  be 
found  in  Home,  p.  2.52.  In  addition  to  those  mentioned  by 
him,  among  the  most  valuable  of  which  is  that  of  Titt- 
MANN,  it  may  be  proper  to  n.ention  here  two  German  works  of 
great  merit.  The  one  is  a  Commentary  in  one  vol.  8vo.  by 
Dr.  Augustus  Tnoi.ucK,  and  the  other  in  two  vols.  8vo.  by 
Dr.  Frederic  Luecke,  Bonn,  1820,  to  which  are  prefi.xed 
general  discussions  respecting  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  The 
author,  although  occasionally  somewhat  mystical  in  his 
views  of  religion,  enters  very  much  into  the  spirit  of  the 


300 


NOTES. 


Evangelist,  and  the  second  volume  particularly  may  be  read 
with  great  profit.  This  is  true  also  of  his  Commentary  on 
the  Epistles  of  St.  John,  which  is  contained  in  his  3d  vol- 
ume, printed  in  1825.  The  work  is  continued  in  a  Com- 
mentary on  the  Apocalypse,  which  I  have  not  yet  been  able 
to  procure.  He  denies  this  to  have  been  the  production  of 
St.  John. — The  Commentary  of  Kuinoel  on  the  Gospels  and 
Acts  in  4  vols.  8vo,  is  well  known.  The  author  has  intro- 
duced into  his  work  many  German  theories,  some  of  which 
he  refutes,  while  he  adopts  no  small  proportion.  It  is  very 
useful  as  a  philological  commentary,  although  inferior  in 
this  respect  to  a  later  work  on  the  Gospels,  by  C.  F.  A. 
Fritsche.  Both  of  these  writers  are  of  the  neological 
school.     Their  commentaries  are  in  Latin. 

NOTE    LXII. 

This  work  of  Heinrichs  constitutes  the  8th  volume  of 
the  Koppian  Commentary,  and  has  been  already  mentioned 
in  a  previous  note. — Among  the  latest  and  most  useful  works 
on  the  Hebrews,  it  is  proper  to  mention  the  commentary  of 
Maclean,  London,  1819,  2  vols.  8vo.,  and  that  of  Professor 
Stuart,  in  2  vols.  8vo.,  a  second  edition  of  which,  in  one 
large  volume,  has  recently  made  its  appearance.  The 
same  author's  commentary  on  the  Romans,  in  one  vol.  8vo. 
is  also  a  valuable  accession  to  our  stores  of  biblical  litera- 
ture.— The  work  of  Borger  on  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians 
is  a  learned  and  judicious  commentary. — Storr's  interpre- 
tation of  the  epistles  to  the  Philippians,  Colossians,  and 
Philemon,  with  historical  notices  respecting  those  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  an  interpretation  of  St.  James,  may  be 
found  in  his  Opuscula  Academica,  in  3  vols.  Svo.  A  short 
essay,  by  the  same  author,  on  the  connexion  between  St. 
Paul's  epistles  to  the  Hebrews  and  Galatians  may  be  found 


NOTES.  301 

in  the  Commentationes  Theologicae,  edited  by  Velthusen, 
KuiNOEL,  and  Ruperti,  vol.  ii,  pp.  394 — 420.  Storr's 
works  are  too  highly  appreciated  to  require  any  recommen- 
dation.— On  the  first  epistle  of  St.  Peter,  Professor  Stei- 
GER  of  Geneva,  has  lately  published  a  volume,  which  is 
said  to  be  a  work  of  great  excellence ;  and  on  the  epistle  of 
St.  Jude,  Laurmann's  Notae  Criticae  et  Coramentarius,  Gro- 
ningae,  1818,  8vo.,  is  well  worthy  of  attention. — The  Latin 
version  of  the  epistles,  by  G.  S.  Jaspis,  illustrated  with 
brief  notes,  is  also  an  useful  book. 

NOTE  LXIII. 

The  reader  may  see  a  brief  abstract  of  Eichhorn'a 
scheme  in  Home,  p.  266,  also  notices  of  other  works  on  the 
Apocalypse,  pp.  265 — 269.  Those  of  Lowman  and  Wood- 
house  are  generally  considered  as  among  the  most  satis- 
factory. 

NOTE  LXIV. 

Although  a  large  proportion  of  the  contents  of  this 
chapter  is  particularly  appropriate  to  theological  students 
who  pursue  a  course  of  divinity  in  German  Universities ; 
yet  the  general  sentiments  which  it  expresses,  and  the  ex- 
posure of  incorrect  views  and  meagre  preparation  which  it 
makes,  are  equally  applicable  in  our  own  age  and  country. 
The  reader  will  very  easily  accommodate  the  author's  re- 
marks to  the  state  of  theological  study  among  ourselves,  so 
as  to  advance  his  own  improvement. 

NOTE  LXV. 

The  practice  mentioned  by  the  author  is  not  even  yet 
fallen  into  disuse.  Dwunix,  in  his  travels  in  Germany, 
p.  194,  relates  "  an  anecdote  illustrative  of  tlie  eagerness  of 


302  NOTES. 

students  to  write  down  every  thing  that  the  professor  utters, 
A  young  man  from  Hesse  Cassel,  who  had  passed  three  years 
at  the  University  of  Heidelberg,  having  finished  his  educa- 
tion, started  for  home  with  nearly  twenty  volumes  of  notes 
which  he  had  taken  at  the  lectures.  On  the  way,  his 
trunk,  containing  his  note  book,  was  cut  off  from  the  car- 
riage. In  consequence  of  tliis  robbery,  he  returned  to  Hei- 
delberg, and  studied  three  years  longer,  to  provide  himself 
with  a  trunk  full  of  learning."  This  anecdote,  as  the  tra- 
veller remarks,  exhibits  the  practice  in  a  ludicrous  light. 
But  as  the  notes  taken  "  contain  not  only  abstracts  of  the 
lectures,  but  a  list  of  all  the  authorities  referred  to,  with  the 
chapters  and  sections,"  it  is  plain  that  they  may  be  very 
useful  to  the  students  in  future  life,  especially  to  those  who 
cannot  conveniently  procure  many  books.  Other  advanta- 
ges arising  from  the  practice  of  taking  notes  will  readily 
suggest  themselves. 

NOTE  LXVI. 

The  translator  feels  that  he  cannot  conclude  these 
notes  more  suitably,  than  by  urging  the  author's  last  remark 
on  the  attention  of  theological  students.  For  them  princi- 
pally this  work  was  undertaken  ;  and  if  it  shall  aid,  through 
the  blessing  of  divine  Providence,  in  promoting  a  funda- 
mental and  continued  study  of  the  holy  scriptures,  the  in- 
tended object  will  have  been  gained,  and  the  labor  of  the 
writer  abundantly  compensated. 

It  is  an  admitted  principle  among  Protestants,  that  all 
revealed  knowledge  of  religion  is  to  be  drawn  from  the 
Bible.  "  Whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be 
proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it 
should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith."*     How  to  deter- 

•  Article  sixth  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Church  in  the  United  States. 


NOTES.  303 

mine  the  genuineness  of  the  Bible,  and  to  ascertain  its 
meaning,  are  the  two  leading  topics,  to  an  acquaintance 
with  which,  the  preceding  work  is  intended  to  introduce 
the  reader.  A  satisfactory  interpretation  of  the  Bible  must, 
of  course,  be  founded  on  the  original  texts ;  it  must  be  an 
interpretation  of  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of 
the  Greek  of  the  New.  The  very  first  condition  therefore 
required  of  him  who  would  become  an  interpreter,  is  a 
competent  acquaintance  with  the^e  languages ;  that  is  to 
say,  such  an  acquaintance  as  shall  enable  him  to  read  and 
analyse  with  grammatical  correctness.  With  regard  to  the 
New  Testament  this  may  universally  be  expected,  and  is  in 
a  considerable  degree  complied  with.  But  with  regard  to 
the  Old,  the  very  contrary  is  true.  And  yet  it  would  be 
difficult  to  give  a  good  reason,  why  a  young  man  of  educa- 
tion should  think  of  beginning  to  explain  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, without  having  acquired  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew.  I 
hazard  nothing  by  remarking,  that  very  few  intelligent  can- 
didates for  the  ministry  pursue  their  studies  many  months 
without  regretting  that  their  philological  preparation  is  so 
imperfect.  If  those  who  intend  to  become  students  of  di- 
vinity could  be  induced  to  acquire  a  considerable  acquaint- 
ance with  Hebrew  before  commencing  their  theological 
course,  they  would  prosecute  the  study  of  the  Bible  with 
tenfold  satisfaction.  They  would  feel  that  they  were  ad- 
vancing towards  the  desired  object  on  solid  ground,  if  not 
with  rapidity,  yet  with  certainty.  They  would  be  able  to 
appreciate  the  instructions  of  a  teacher,  and  would  the  soon- 
er become  prepared  to  judge  themselves  respecting  their 
correctness,  and  to  form  opinions  on  the  various  topics  con- 
nected with  interpretation.  Then,  instead  of  paying  no 
more  attention  to  Hebrew  than  is  absolutely  necessary  in 
order  to  enable  a  student  to  meet  the  unavoidable  demands 


304  NOTES. 

of  a  theological  seminary,  and  after  entering  on  the  duties 
of  the  ministry  abandoning  it  entirely;  it  would  be  read  du- 
ring the  course  of  instruction  with  comparative  ease,  and 
pursued  in  after  life  with  pleasure.  The  uninterrupted  ap- 
plication of  three  or  four  hours  a  day  for  six  months,  direct- 
ed first  to  the  grammar  of  the  language,  the  forms  of  the 
words,  and  especially  the  paradigms  of  the  verbs,  with  which 
tlie  learner  ought  to  make  himself  thoroughly  acquainted, 
and  then  to  reading  and  analysing,  would  enable  a  diligent 
student  to  realize  the  advantages  just  mentioned.  The  fa- 
cility with  which  so  important  an  end  can  be  attained,  ought 
to  be  regarded  as  a  strong  motive  on  every  candidate  for  the 
ministry  to  make  the  effort,  unless  prevented  by  considera- 
tions, which  impartial  and  conscientious  examination  will 
allow  him  to  regard  as  sufficient  to  free  him  from  the  obli- 
gation. 


THE  END. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Pages- 
Accommodation,  Doctrine  of. 140—146,  277—282 

Limitations  of  the  principle  of. 147 — 154,  283 — 285 

Alexandrine  Manuscript 50,  218 

Allegorical  Interpretation  incorrectly  charged  on  some  of  the 

eariiest  fathers 287—289 

Biblical  Criticism,  Literary  Helps  for  the  study  of. 83—98 

Cambridge  Manuscript 219,  220 

Canon,  what 20 

Catenae  Pat  rum 94 

Clermont  Manuscript 220 

Codex  Ottobianus 223 

Ravinus 222 

Rescriptus :  219 

Commentaries,  &c 179—198,  294—301 

Criticism,  Sacred,  Objects  and  Necessity  of. 39 — 41 

-Sources  of. 43,  ss 

Divinity,  Apologetic 15 — 19 

Exegesis,  what 121 

Fathers,  Quotations  in  the 56 — 58 

Grammars,  Hebrew  and  Chaldee 80,  81,  233,  234 

Hebrew,  one  dialect  of  a  more  extensive  language 213 — 215 

Usefulness  of  a  knowledge  of  it 269,  270,  303,  304 

Helps  to  be  used  in  studying  it 36 — 39 

Method  of  study 108,  109 

Hellenistic  Controversy 65 — 69 

Hermeneutics,  what 121 

History  of. 155—170 

Interpretation,  Laws  of  necessary 123,  124 

Source  from  which  they  must  be  drawn 125,  126 

First  Law 128—132 

Second 132—136 

Third 136,  137 

Works  on 171—178 

Object  which  the  Student  of  should  propose  to 

himself 199-202 

Method  of  attaining  it 203—209 

26 


306 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Introduction  to  Theology,  what 5 — 7 

Languages,  the  utility  of  studying  them 13,  14 

Lectionaria 217 

Lexicons,  Hebrew  and  Greek 80,  227,  231—233 

Manuscripts 48-54,  216—223 

Classification  and  recension  of. 52,  53,  250—253 

Monifort  Manuscript 221 

New  Testament,  editions  of  the 95—97,  262,  263,  296 

Greek,  of  the 24—27 

A  particular  study  of  it  necessary 28 — 30 

Helps  to  be  used 31 — 34 

Sources  to  illustrate 70—74,  213,  227 

■ Philology,  method  of  studying  it 113 — 119 

Old  Testament,  sources  to  illustrate  the  language  of  the 75 — 83 

Philology,  Sacred,  what 23,  24 

History  of. 59—65 

— ■ Method  of  studying  it 99—120 

Polyglots 78,  228,  ss 

Prolegomena,  Analysis  of  Griesbach's 239 — 258 

Remarks  on  his  system 258—262 

Reason  to  be  appealed  to  in  interpretation 125,  271 

Samaritan  Pentateuch 79 

Scripture  to  be  interpreted  in  the  same  manner  as  other  books..  138,  139 

Limitation  of  this  principle 275 

Targums 77 

Theology,  what 7,  8 

Division  of. 11,  12 

(Qualifications  necessary  for  studying 9 — 11 

Preparatory  knowledge 12 — 14 

Translations  not  to  be  substituted  for  originals 110 — 112 

Vatican  Manuscript 219 

Versions,  use  of 54,  55 

Ancient,  of  the  New  Testament 90 — 94 


Date  Due 

mvmmmmm,m 

b 

1 

<|) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

^^H 


